"Whata Fool" <whata@fool.ami> wrote in message 
news:rpjed35hfnk600uv7adon7td0b6ii3r2nb@4ax.com...

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:27:58 -0700, "BogusID" <BogusID@YesItIs.com>
wrote:

"Whata Fool" <whata@fool.ami> wrote in message

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:41:28 -0000, dhegdk1763@pookmail.com wrote:

Now, after so many years, I feel suddenly just tired to go on looking
for you unsuccessfully.

         Don't give up,  very few people really care.

ebay  330160736311

Amusing eBay patent sale reference!

I thought it was *bad* to refer to previous design works of others 
(Jenkins,
White, Howard...), since that builds upon a previous invention casting
possible doubt on the originality of the work?

        Most references listed in patents are those cited by the
examiner, not the inventor.

        In this case, the parent application serial number precedes
the F-117 application serial number by two months, in such new
technology, references cited by the examiner are more to allow
the inventor to deny pertinence, defining the art better.

I didn't know an examiner could modify the body of submitted text within a 
patent?
It seems that an examiners addendum with page/line references would be more 
appropriate.
Copyrights are much easier, my first patent is in process now ... my what a 
price difference between the two!