Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
One did / does not need to be technical to see that it was wilful to ignore that?

In fact, one DOES need a technical understanding of the patent as well as the prior art. You cannot simple take the claims of a patent as 'fact' and (as Gilbert & Sullivan said) 'things are seldom as they seem'. As I said earlier, the patent examiner simply looks for published prior art, not technical validity

Did you work for Kodak?
I worked on the Kodak Instant System for 7 years and read hundreds of Polaroid patents.

At this point, we must agree to disagree and move on.