So you've addressed maybe half the essential features of the claim, and that clearly makes all of it obvious? What about the rest? Is it obvious to do all these things in the way claimed? Do you have proof this it is obvious to do so? The law doesn't work based on opinion, it works on proof first, and evidence when proof is lacking. You can call it bullshit all you want, but until you have something to back it up, you're just talking shit.
> The law doesn't work based on opinion, it works on proof first, and evidence when proof is lacking.
Yeah, and I have enough of a background that my opinion is evidence.
That was simple, wasn't it?
If we found an acknowledged expert in the domain, their opinion would be very strong evidence indeed.
Let me put it this way: the goal of establishing a patent system was to encourage public disclosure of methods. A time window was granted to the patent holder to make exclusive use of the material, but after that, to revert to the public domain.
This patent application ADDS NOTHING THAT IS NOT OBVIOUS to the public domain. That's my opinion, and I think I have enough of a background in the domain that my opinion is evidence.
Your argument is that, if I were MORE of an expert in the domain, I might suddenly realize that the claims are more subtle and inventive, than I can discern as a journeyman in the domain?
And yes, you keep cleverly asking for a link, but that's presuming that prior art is the only way to defeat a patent. An idea can be both NEW (or phrased to sound new) and OBVIOUS to a practitioner. In which case, your asking for a link is a strawman argument.
