The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 25th, 2019, 1:33am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Novelty
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Intended use?
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Intended use?  (Read 5854 times)
Re...jected
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 9
Intended use?
« on: Feb 16th, 2007, 9:03pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Hey Guys (and Gals),  Great site!
 
Can anyone tell me what "intended use" is supposed to mean, in terms of a 102(b) rejection?
 
Example:  
 
Claim 243  A gerbil umbrella comprising a stick and a shade, which is shaped and sized so as to provide a minimal barrier against rain, and which is (say) transparent so as to avoid obscuring full view of the beauty that is gerbil.
 
...is rejected because it is anticipated by a beach umbrella, a carrying-case for an orange safety cone, and a design patent for a clear vinyl raincoat for humans.
 
Claimant argues that any single 102(b) reference must contain all the elements of a claim, and that none of the references speak to gerbils.  (The scope of the invention had earlier been narrowed to domestic rodents, if you will.)
 
Examiner argues that a gerbil umbrella is the intended use.
 
Claimant says, "what?"
 
Examiner says, "gerbil umbrella is the intended use."
 
Claimant says, "could you explain to me how gerbil umbrella is not a claim limitation?"
 
Examiner:  I just told you.  Let's see...Hewlett-Packard yada-yada-yada...
 
Claimant:  No, could you explain to me how gerbil umbrella is not a claim limitation though?
 
Examiner:  I'm just repeating myself.  I've already spent too much time on your case.
 
Claimant:  Can you make sure to cite those precedents in the interview summary?
 
Examiner:  Yes, I will.  And, from now on, any further contact needs to be in writing!  Click.
 
Claimant:  Click.
« Last Edit: Feb 16th, 2007, 10:19pm by Re...jected » IP Logged
mypatentcounsel
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 5
Re: Intended use?
« Reply #1 on: Feb 17th, 2007, 12:35am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Mr. Rejected: There is no need to be dejected because most of the time there are ways around 102(b) rejections. In fact 102(b) rejections/ anticipation are easier to respond to than obviousness or 103.  
However, I think the Examiner is right in that gebril umbrella is part of the preamble and therefore not a claim element/limitation. In other words, in your claim (243) you have only 2 elements, stick and a shade.  
In prosecuting mechanical devices, you need to look at the STRUCTURE and not the INTENDED USE. Does that answer your question? Unfortunately, I am unable to advise you on how to respond to the Examiner because I do not know the details here. If you have any questions, please free to contact me.
 
Martin Jerisat www.mypatentcounsel.com/ www.tmlawus.com
IP Logged
Re...jected
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 9
Re: Intended use?
« Reply #2 on: Feb 17th, 2007, 10:37am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Thanks for the reply.
 
But, wouldn't size, shape, and transparency qualify as further limitations?  Should I have left the "gerbil" out of the "umbrella" part (literally)?
 
Also, can a design patent be used responsibly to reject a claim on the basis of novelty where, in essence, NO elements are read upon?
 
(To be more congruent in my example, I should've said a DESIGN patent for a beach umbrella...and a regular-old utility patent for the clear raincoat.)
IP Logged
mypatentcounsel
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 5
Re: Intended use?
« Reply #3 on: Feb 17th, 2007, 7:15pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Dear Rejected:  You can email me the office action and I will be happy to take a look at it. mjerisat@tmlawusa.com
IP Logged
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board