Typo in patent claims = unenforceable?

[J Newman]

I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.

In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.

A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.

My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.

Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

[J Newman]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.
Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

It is a US patent.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:27:32 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.
Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

It is a US patent.

Typos and other errors in US patents are often corrected if the patentee
asks for a "certificate of correction".

If there isn't one already, there might be one in the future if the
patentee discovers the error and is sufficiently concerned about it.

Not sure how comprehensive this is, but you may find a certificate of
correction tagged on the end of the PDF of the patent at
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/patent-public-search
(Limit the basic search to patent or patent application number, or you
may get a lot of extraneous hits.)

[J Newman]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.
Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

I suppose a person of average intelligence might notice that powders
comprised of particles with a size of mm rather than nm might cause a
few problems.

I don't think the patent was very good; the key paragraphs were buried
in a lot of pseudo-science and gobbledygook.

Seems like a patent intended to scare away competitors and make
difficult reading.

[Clive Arthur]

On 06/09/2024 08:31, J Newman wrote:

<snipped>

Post by J Newman

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.

I don't think the patent was very good; the key paragraphs were buried
in a lot of pseudo-science and gobbledygook.
Seems like a patent intended to scare away competitors and make
difficult reading.

Yes. Big (US particularly) companies have departments which apply for
patents which would be voided if challenged by someone with deep enough
pockets.

I worked for a small UK company which was bought by GE - they have such
a patent mill. My boss went through their online process with me for an
idea of mine, and a US patent was eventually granted in joint names.
Having seen how easy the process was, and knowing that GE paid a cash
bonus for each one, I then did it several more times myself while
looking for another job not involving the Yankee Dollar.

I now have six granted US patents and one Chinese through this process.
Some are risible, seriously. Two are quite clever IMNSHO. But none
made it as UK patents.

Also, small companies may avoid patent applications as that releases
your idea to the world, and leaves you open to prior art claims by
similar companies who may have been using 'your' clever idea for years
and likewise didn't want it in the public domain.

[BrritSki]

Post by Clive Arthur
<snipped>

Post by J Newman

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.

I don't think the patent was very good; the key paragraphs were buried
in a lot of pseudo-science and gobbledygook.
Seems like a patent intended to scare away competitors and make
difficult reading.

Yes.  Big (US particularly) companies have departments which apply for
patents

They do now, but some decades ago they weren't always so savvy...

In 1979 I was working at TI on their 99/4A Home Computer software team.
I had an idea for a Soccer [1] game. There was nothing on the market at
the time and the bosses couldn't see how it would work so I created a
version in TI Basic. They were sold on the idea and it was then
developed using GPL (a kind of assembler language oriented towards
graphics with sprites etc).

When you watch it now [2] it's unbelievably primitive and slow, but the
innovation was the algorithm that moved the supporting players based on
how each human moved their attacker/defender and where the ball was. It
was very simple, based on zones, but I imagine it was the basis of all
the much better games that came later for some time (but maybe not now).

If we'd patented that idea we would have made a lot of money I think.
"We" because although the patent would have belonged to TI they were
very generous to their inventors.

[1] Sorry - US company

[2]

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.
Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

I suppose a person of average intelligence might notice that powders
comprised of particles with a size of mm rather than nm might cause a
few problems.

But is it obvious in the context whether they are microns, nanometres or
picometres?

Post by J Newman
I don't think the patent was very good; the key paragraphs were buried
in a lot of pseudo-science and gobbledygook.
Seems like a patent intended to scare away competitors and make
difficult reading.

[Jeff]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:08:47 +0800, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
I was looking at a patent in my field, and in the claims section there
appears to be a mistake.
In describing the dimensions of a powder, 100 mm was typed instead of
100 nm. A difference in by a factor of a million.
A person knowledgeable in the art could immediately spot that and
discern it is a typographical error.
My question is whether the typo has rendered the patent useless? What if
the typo is in the Description section and the claims just says "Powder"?

Which country or region? The practice varies from one to another.
Can a person of ordinary skill in the art immediately spot not only that
there is an error, but also what the correct value should be?

It does not take much skill to realise that a powder with a particle
size of 100mm is bot a powder! However, guessing the correct size might
take a bit more skill.

Jeff