﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"><channel rdf:about="/comments/rss.aspx"><title>Intellectual Property Matters: Recent Comments</title><link>http://ipmatters.iplawblog.net</link><description /><dc:publisher>Quick Blogcast</dc:publisher><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://app.onlinequickblog.com/" /><items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ipmatters.iplawblog.net/2009/02/10/federal-circuit-capability-of-performing-in-infringing-manner-is-not-necessarily-direct-infringement.aspx#comment-1853823" /></rdf:Seq></items></channel><item rdf:about="http://ipmatters.iplawblog.net/2009/02/10/federal-circuit-capability-of-performing-in-infringing-manner-is-not-necessarily-direct-infringement.aspx#comment-1853823"><title>Comment on Federal Circuit: Capability of performing in infringing manner is not necessarily direct infringement.</title><link>http://ipmatters.iplawblog.net/2009/02/10/federal-circuit-capability-of-performing-in-infringing-manner-is-not-necessarily-direct-infringement.aspx#comment-1853823</link><description>I'm looking for cases, treatises, etc., which apply similar reasoning to method patent claims--capability to perform a method is not direct infringement.  Any help would be appreciated.</description><dc:creator>James Myers</dc:creator><dc:date>2009-02-26T20:39:19Z</dc:date></item></rdf:RDF>