(Total Views: 220)
Posted On: 11/09/2017 9:34:15 AM
Post# of 22463
Re: Puravida19 #8447
That's basically boilerplate language. The language in the body of the patent may be useful in understanding the claims, but the patent is what is claimed not what is in the body of the patent. Also, you can't have "bucket clauses" in patents. That would completely defeat the purpose of a patent as the reader wouldn't know what's patented. A patent has to be specific. Also, the broader your claims, the greater the chance of a court finding them invalid.
The Apple patent's two independent claims are clear that it's a blue LED based invention, and I don't see where any of the dependent claims allow for blue electrochromic film to replace the blue LEDs. In fact, "blue quantum dots" is not mentioned anywhere in the patent:
The Apple patent's two independent claims are clear that it's a blue LED based invention, and I don't see where any of the dependent claims allow for blue electrochromic film to replace the blue LEDs. In fact, "blue quantum dots" is not mentioned anywhere in the patent:
Quote:
What is claimed is:
1. A display, comprising: a display module; and backlight structures that provide light to the display module, wherein the backlight structures include: blue light-emitting diodes that provide blue light;...
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
