Big Boss Man (wrestler) Singles competition (1990-1993) what happened in 1990? In the fall of 1990, Boss Man began feuding with Bobby Heenan and The Heenan Family after Heenan continually insulted Boss Man's mother. what did the feud consist of? He won a series of matches against Heenan Family members in 1991, including The Barbarian at the Royal Rumble and Mr. Perfect ( what was his greatest accomplishment stated in the article? SummerSlam, he defeated The Mountie in a Jailhouse Match, a match in which the loser must spend a night in jail. when did he do this? I don't know. what is the most important fact mentioned in the article? The Big Boss Man's last pay-per-view match of this run came at the 1993 Royal Rumble, where he lost to Bam Bam Bigelow. He left the WWF shortly what did he do after he left? During the next few months he made appearances in the USWA and SMW. Are there any other interesting aspects about this article? Boss Man began feuding with Nailz, an ex-convict character who, in a series of promos aired before his debut, claimed Boss Man had been his abusive Officer in prison,
what came of this claim?
What came of the claim of Boss Man's abuse?
In the fall of 1990, Boss Man began feuding with Bobby Heenan and The Heenan Family after Heenan continually insulted Boss Man's mother. He won a series of matches against Heenan Family members in 1991, including The Barbarian at the Royal Rumble and Mr. Perfect (via disqualification) at WrestleMania VII in an Intercontinental Championship match, which featured the return of Andre the Giant. At the SummerSlam, he defeated The Mountie in a Jailhouse Match, a match in which the loser must spend a night in jail. This was the only such match ever held by the promotion. Boss Man then briefly feuded with Irwin R. Schyster. In 1992, Boss Man began feuding with Nailz, an ex-convict character who, in a series of promos aired before his debut, claimed Boss Man had been his abusive Officer in prison, and warned he was seeking revenge. On the May 30 episode of WWF Superstars, Nailz -- clad in an orange prison jumpsuit -- ran into the ring and attacked Boss Man, handcuffing him to the top rope and repeatedly choking and beating him with the nightstick. Boss Man took time off TV to sell his (kayfabe) injuries, eventually returning and having a series of matches with Nailz in the latter half of 1992. The feud culminated at Survivor Series, when Boss Man defeated Nailz in a Nightstick on a Pole match. This was the final push for the Boss Man during this run, as he was subsequently used as enhancement talent against Razor Ramon, Bam Bam Bigelow, and Yokozuna on the house show circuit. The Big Boss Man's last pay-per-view match of this run came at the 1993 Royal Rumble, where he lost to Bam Bam Bigelow. He left the WWF shortly after a house show in Gatineau, Quebec on March 14. During the next few months he made appearances in the USWA and SMW. On December 4 he made a one-time return to the WWF as a special guest referee to officiate the main event of a house show in Anaheim, CA between Bret Hart and Jeff Jarrett. Bossman was expected to rejoin the WWF but elected to sign with WCW instead. CANNOTANSWER
On the May 30 episode of WWF Superstars, Nailz -- clad in an orange prison jumpsuit -- ran into the ring and attacked Boss Man,
In a patent or patent application, the claims define, in technical terms, the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. In other words, the purpose of the claims is to define which subject-matter is protected by the patent (or sought to be protected by the patent application). This is termed as the "notice function" of a patent claim—to warn others of what they must not do if they are to avoid infringement liability. The claims are of the utmost importance both during prosecution and litigation alike.

For instance, a claim could read:
 "An apparatus for catching mice, said apparatus comprising a base, a spring member coupled to the base, and ..."
 "A chemical composition for cleaning windows, said composition substantially consisting of 10–15% ammonia, ..."
 "Method for computing future life expectancies, said method comprising gathering data including X, Y, Z,  analyzing the data, comparing the analyzed data results..."

Background 

In most jurisdictions, a patent is a right to exclude others from making, using, importing, selling or offering for sale the subject matter defined by the claims when the claim is for a thing (apparatus, composition of matter, system, etc.).  If a claim is for a method, the right to exclude would be to exclude any single party from carrying out all the steps of the claim. In order to exclude someone from using a patented invention, the patent owner, or patentee, needs to demonstrate in a court proceeding that what the other person is using falls within the scope of a claim of the patent; therefore, it is more valuable to obtain claims that include the minimal set of limitations that differentiate an invention over what came before (i.e., the so-called prior art). But the fewer the limitations in a claim, the more likely it is that the claim will cover, or "read on," what came before and be rejected during examination or found to be invalid at a later time for obviousness or lack of novelty.

History 

Patents have not always contained claims. In many European countries, patents did not contain claims until the 1970s. Before that time, it was often difficult to decide whether a product infringed a patent, since the sole basis to know the extent of protection was the description, in view of the prior art. Claims have been necessary parts of U.S. patent applications since the enactment of the Patent Act of 1836.

However, even among patent legal systems in which the claims are used as the reference to decide the scope of protection conferred by a patent, the way the claims are used may vary substantially. Traditionally, two types of claiming systems exist:
 the "central claiming system", according to which the claims identify the "centre" of the patented invention. The exact scope of the protection depends on the actual nature of the inventor’s contribution to the art in the concerned technology.
 the "peripheral claiming system", according to which the claims identify the exact periphery, or boundary, of the conferred protection. In this system, the burden of drafting good claims is much higher on the patent applicant (or on his or her counsel). The applicant receives the protection he or she requested and almost nothing more, provided that the invention is new and non-obvious. This theoretically makes it easier for third parties to examine whether infringement may exist or not.

No patent system today is a purely either central or peripheral, but the system used in Germany and most of the other countries of continental Europe is considered more central than the system currently used in the United Kingdom, the United States, and especially Japan, which are more peripheral.  In recent years, Japan's system has become more peripheral, while the system used in the United States was becoming more central because of the increasing resort in US patent litigation to the doctrine of equivalents to expand claim scope unpredictably, until the US Supreme Court reversed that trend in the Warner-Jenkinson case in 1997.

Requirements and structure 
In most modern patent laws, patent applications must have at least one claim, which are critical defining elements of the patent and the primary subject of examination. In some patent laws however, a date of filing may be obtained for an application which does not contain any claim.

European Patent Convention

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), a claim must define the matter for which the protection is sought in terms of technical features. These technical features can be either structural (e.g. a nail, a rivet) or functional (e.g. fastening means).

Regarding the structure of a claim, under the EPC, what is called the "preamble" is different from the meaning the "preamble" has under U.S. patent law. In an independent claim in Europe, the preamble is everything which precedes the expression "characterized in that" or "characterized by" in a claim written according to the so-called "two-part form", and therefore everything which is regarded as known in combination within one prior art document, namely the closest prior art document. For this reason, in Europe, the preamble of a claim is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion".

United States
A claim may include the following parts:

 A preamble that recites the class of the invention, and optionally its primary properties, purpose, or field: "An apparatus..." "A therapeutic method for treating cancer..." "A composition having an affinity for protein X..." This preamble may also reference another claim and refine it, e.g., "The method of claim 1..." (See "dependent claim" below.).
 A "transitional" phrase that characterizes the elements that follow. The phrases "comprising", "containing" and "including" are most often used and (under some patent laws, specifically US) preferable, as it means "having at least the following elements..." and are therefore open (inclusive) and do not exclude additional limitations.  The phrases "consisting of" and "consisting essentially of" are (under some patent laws, specifically US) more limiting, as they mean "having all and only" or "virtually only" and are therefore closed (exclusive).  In the US, the phrase "consisting of" excludes additional limitations, while the phrase "consisting essentially of" excludes additional limitations that would "materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention".
 A set of "limitations" that together describe the invention: "an X, a Y, and a Z connected to the X and the Y." The elements should be described as though they interact or cooperate to achieve the desired result. 
 Optionally, a purpose clause that further describes the overall operation of the invention, or the goal that the invention achieves ("wherein the Z simultaneously controls the X and Y," or "wherein the Z accomplishes purpose W by controlling X and Y," etc.). "Wherein" clauses limit the scope of the claim. Other forms of purpose language are "whereby" and "thereby" clauses, similar to the "wherein" clauses just described, and statements of intended use in a claim preamble (depending on facts of case, preamble may or may not limit claim scope; in this case it was the "essence of the invention").

Interpretation or claim construction 

The claims often use precise language. Certain words commonly used in claims have specific legal meanings determined by one or more court decisions.  These meanings may be different from common usage. For instance, the word "comprises", when used in the claims of a United States patent, means "consists at least of".  By contrast, the word "consists" means "consists only of", which will lead to a very different scope of protection.

Furthermore, in U.S. patent practice at least, inventors may "act as their own lexicographer" in a patent application.  That means that an inventor may give a common word or phrase a meaning that is very specific and different from the normal definition of said word or phrase.  Thus a claim must be interpreted in light of the definitions provided in the specification of a patent. The specification of a patent is a written description of how to make and use the invention (see also: sufficiency of disclosure). In U.S. law, a claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution of the application; however, in a suit for patent infringement, a claim is interpreted in a Markman hearing.

Basic types and categories 

There are two basic types of claims:
 the independent claims, which stand on their own, and
 the dependent claims, which depend on a single claim or on several claims and generally express particular embodiments as fall-back positions.

The expressions "in one embodiment", "in a preferred embodiment", "in a particular embodiment", "in an advantageous embodiment" or the like often appear in the description of patent applications and are used to introduce a particular implementation or method of carrying out the invention. These various embodiments may or may not each be claimed with specificity. They might serve as multiple examples of a more general "genus" that is claimed. In some cases the examiner might declare that what the applicant presented as variations of one invention are actually separate inventions that need to be examined individually.

An independent ("stand alone") claim does not refer to an earlier claim, whereas a dependent claim does refer to an earlier claim, assumes all of the limitations of that claim and then adds restrictions (e.g. "The handle of claim 2, wherein it is hinged.")  Each dependent claim is, by law, narrower than the independent claim upon which it depends. Although this results in coverage narrower than provided by the independent claim upon which the second claim depends, it is additional coverage, and there are many advantages to the patent applicant in submitting and obtaining a full suite of dependent claims:

 Clarification/broadening of the independent claim: Independent claims are typically written with broad terms, to avoid permitting competitors to circumvent the claim by altering some aspect of the basic design. But when a broad wording is used, it may raise a question as to the scope of the term itself. If a dependent claim is specifically drawn to a narrower interpretation, then, at least in the U.S., the doctrine of claim differentiation states that the scope of the independent claim is strongly presumed be different from, and therefore broader than, the scope of the dependent claim. The doctrine dictates that it "is improper for courts to read into an independent claim a limitation explicitly set forth in another claim." This means that if an independent claim recites a chair with a plurality of legs, and a dependent claim depending from the independent recites a chair with four legs, the independent claim is not limited to what is recited in the dependent claim.  The dependent claim protects chairs with four legs, and the independent claim protects chairs with four legs as well as chairs having two, three, five or more legs. Similarly, it may be unclear whether a "base" includes a "set of legs." A dependent claim, including the phrase, "wherein said base comprises a set of legs," if allowed by the patent examiner, clarifies that the word "base" in the independent claim does not necessarily include legs. In practice, dependent claims are often used to home in on the inventor's preferred embodiment of the invention (e.g., the actual product design that the inventor intends to use.) The independent claim broadly describes the invention; dependent claim #1 describes the invention in a narrower aspect that more specifically describes the preferred embodiment; dependent claim #2 is narrower still; etc.

 Possible invalidity of independent claim: It is impossible to know, when beginning the application process and even at the time of patent issuance, if a patent claim is valid. This is because any publication dated before the application's priority date and published anywhere in any language can invalidate the claim (excluding publications by the inventor published during the grace period in certain countries such as U.S., Canada and Japan). Furthermore, even applications that were not yet published at the time of filing, but have a priority date prior to the priority date of the application, can also invalidate the claim. As it is impossible to gain an absolute and complete knowledge of every publication on earth, not to mention unpublished patent applications, there is always some degree of uncertainty. If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and may still be broad enough to bar competitors from valuable commercial territory.

Under the European Patent Convention, when a claim in one particular category (see below), e.g. a process claim, depends on a claim from a different category, e.g. a product claim, it is not considered to be a dependent claim but an independent claim. Under U.S. law, this is still counted as a dependent claim, regardless of the class change.

The rules of claim drafting also permit "multiple dependent claims" that reference more than one other claim, e.g.: "3. Method of claim 1 or 2, further comprising..." The rules for this are quite specific: specific claims must be referenced ("the method of any of these other claims" is incorrect); the claims must be referenced in the alternative ("the method of claims 1 and 2" is incorrect); etc. While still acceptable, this claim style is seldom used in the U.S. because it is counted for filing fee purposes according to the number of claims that it references. Thus, if the claim depends from three former claims, it is counted for fee purposes as three dependent claims. In light of the "excess claim" fees currently imposed by the USPTO, this tactic can quickly become expensive. Multiple dependent claims are, however, very commonly used in other jurisdictions, including Europe.

Claims can also be classified in categories, i.e. in terms of what they claim. A claim can refer to
 a physical entity, i.e. a product (or material) or an apparatus (or device, system, article, ...). The claim is then called respectively "product claim" or "apparatus claim"; or
 an activity, i.e. a process (or method) or a use. The claim is then called respectively "process claim" (or method claim) or "use claim".
In the United States, these categories are called the four statutory categories of invention and are called processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter.

Special types of claims 

In addition to the above basic claim types, there are also many special types of claim which are used in different circumstances. Sometimes a particular claim form is required by law if a patent is to be granted for a particular invention, such as for a second medical use of a known substance where the "Swiss-type" claim might be required. Another reason to use a particular claim might be to catch a particular class of infringer.

See also 
 Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. (1982)
 Claim chart
 Clearance search and opinion
 Cloem, a company creating computer-generated variants of patent claims
 Disclaimer
 Doctrine of equivalents
 Probatio diabolica, in relation to product-by-process claims

References

Further reading 
 The construction of product-by-process claims, 11th European Patent Judges' Symposium, Copenhagen, Official Journal of the EPO 2003, Special Edition, No. 2, p. 20-75 (pdf)

External links 
 European Patent Convention
  defining the extent of protection
 EPC Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC
  defining the role of claims
  (previously ) expressing the legal requirements regarding the form and content of the claims
 US patent law (Title 35 of the US Code)
 35 USC § 101 patentable subject matter
 35 USC § 112 specification and claims
 Studies on patent claims
 When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO This paper addresses issues in measuring the voluminosity of patent applications (number of claims and pages) and highlights patterns in its evolution.

Patent law Job Carr (July 2, 1813 - August 10, 1887) was the founder of Tacoma, Washington, United States.

A Union veteran of the United States Civil War, Carr came west in 1864 to settle on a 168-acre claim in what is now Tacoma.

Carr was the first permanent European American settler in the area. He built a cabin on his claim, which doubled as the United States Post Office when Carr was appointed Postmaster. He was an early promoter of Tacoma as a potential terminus for the Northern Pacific Railroad, and encouraged settlement in the new town.

A replica of his original cabin stands near the original location, and serves as a museum of both Carr and of early Tacoma.

References

External links
Job Carr arrives at future site of Tacoma
Job Carr Cabin Museum

1813 births
1887 deaths
People from Tacoma, Washington Hempel's dilemma is a question first asked (at least on record) by the philosopher Carl Hempel.  It has relevance to naturalism and physicalism in philosophy, and to philosophy of mind.

Overview
Physicalism, in at least one rough sense, is the claim that the entire world may be described and explained using the laws of nature, in other words, that all phenomena are natural phenomena.  This leaves open the question of what is 'natural' (in physicalism 'natural' means procedural, causally coherent or all effects have particular causes regardless of human knowledge [like physics] and interpretation and it also means 'ontological reality' and not just a hypothesis or a calculational technique), but one common understanding of the claim is that everything in the world is ultimately explicable in the terms of physics. This is known as reductive physicalism. However, this type of physicalism in its turn leaves open the question of what we are to consider as the proper terms of physics.  There seem to be two options here, and these options form the horns of Hempel's dilemma, because neither seems satisfactory.

On the one hand, we may define the physical as whatever is currently explained by our best physical theories, e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity. Though many would find this definition unsatisfactory, some would accept that we have at least a general understanding of the physical based on these theories, and can use them to assess what is physical and what is not. And therein lies the rub, as a worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories.

On the other hand, if we say that some future, "ideal" physics is what is meant, then the claim is rather empty, for we have no idea of what this means. The "ideal" physics may even come to define what we think of as mental as part of the physical world.  In effect, physicalism by this second account becomes the circular claim that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because physics properly defined is whatever explains all phenomena.

Beenakker has proposed to resolve Hempel's dilemma with the definition: "The boundary between physics and metaphysics is the boundary between what can and what cannot be computed in the age of the universe".

Hempel's dilemma is relevant to philosophy of mind because explanations of issues such as consciousness, representation, and intentionality are very hard to come by using current physics, although many people in philosophy (and other fields such as cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience) hold to physicalism.

References

Cognition
Arguments in philosophy of mind
Dilemmas
Naturalism (philosophy)
Physicalism