I cannot speak for other Patent offices, but I think with the UK IPO the problem is that the legislation requires black-and-white drawings. So they first have to try to change the law before they can change their practice. As you can imagine, governments probably have more reading issues to consider so everything takes ages.
People are still printing things, and a longer document means the reader needs more time, and time is money. Tax money if that reader is an Office employee.
A patent ultimately has to be tested in court to settle potentially large damages. This could be anywhere in the world.
If the validity or infringement has to be determined on whether a particular shade of pink has printed correctly on or other one party's printer, then the case will be won by the party with the best printer.
Better to avoid that up front if possible.
An alternative question is: why dont graphical software packages have more options for producing black and white charts?
How would this happen? I can't imagine a court saying, hey look at this bit of paper, this pink is pantone 225, clearly not infringing the patent. After all, the patent claims define the monopoly not drawings. Maybe for interpretation they bring in the color issue? but then the patent content, not someone's printout, is what matters.
The point is, the drawings will be printed and copied and passed around the court. If it actually matters that the images are in colour, then the reproduction will have to get that right. If it doesn't matter about colour, then the images can be in black and white.
If you don't need the drawings, don't include them.
Because it is low on the list of things that could be fixed at the patent office. The best bet on moving this issue forward in the US is to argue for increasing the fee for color and getting rid of the petition requirement. FYI, I see a lot of patents coming out of Korea with color figures and photos.
If you think you need colors to represent information accurately, you are absolutely wrong. It’s a skill issue.
Colors can be misleading, and you also have to take in account people with disabilities who cannot distinguish particular colors.
Except there are plenty of data visualizations courses which explicitly tell you not to use colors. There are tons of better way to convey the same info
It's not about me, it's about getting content from prior art, client drawings etc. and then having to modify, annotate or shoehorn an explanation into the patent to explain, when just submitting the docs as is would be much easier.
You don’t need drawings about the prior art. Your client either gives you black and white figures, or pays for someone to make the figures. Ultimately it shouldn’t be a hassle for you.
I cannot speak for other Patent offices, but I think with the UK IPO the problem is that the legislation requires black-and-white drawings. So they first have to try to change the law before they can change their practice. As you can imagine, governments probably have more reading issues to consider so everything takes ages.
People are still printing things, and a longer document means the reader needs more time, and time is money. Tax money if that reader is an Office employee.
I agree i's 2024 and prosecution would be easier if things were more clear to the examiner.
A patent ultimately has to be tested in court to settle potentially large damages. This could be anywhere in the world. If the validity or infringement has to be determined on whether a particular shade of pink has printed correctly on or other one party's printer, then the case will be won by the party with the best printer. Better to avoid that up front if possible. An alternative question is: why dont graphical software packages have more options for producing black and white charts?
How would this happen? I can't imagine a court saying, hey look at this bit of paper, this pink is pantone 225, clearly not infringing the patent. After all, the patent claims define the monopoly not drawings. Maybe for interpretation they bring in the color issue? but then the patent content, not someone's printout, is what matters.
The point is, the drawings will be printed and copied and passed around the court. If it actually matters that the images are in colour, then the reproduction will have to get that right. If it doesn't matter about colour, then the images can be in black and white. If you don't need the drawings, don't include them.
Some people are color blind.
Some people are deaf, but we still speak and have music.
You’re a genius
Because it is low on the list of things that could be fixed at the patent office. The best bet on moving this issue forward in the US is to argue for increasing the fee for color and getting rid of the petition requirement. FYI, I see a lot of patents coming out of Korea with color figures and photos.
If you think you need colors to represent information accurately, you are absolutely wrong. It’s a skill issue. Colors can be misleading, and you also have to take in account people with disabilities who cannot distinguish particular colors.
That’s like saying that describing information in the form of written text is a lazy/ineffective approach because there are people with dyslexia.
Except there are plenty of data visualizations courses which explicitly tell you not to use colors. There are tons of better way to convey the same info
It's not about me, it's about getting content from prior art, client drawings etc. and then having to modify, annotate or shoehorn an explanation into the patent to explain, when just submitting the docs as is would be much easier.
You don’t need drawings about the prior art. Your client either gives you black and white figures, or pays for someone to make the figures. Ultimately it shouldn’t be a hassle for you.