|
|
Author |
Topic: Non Patent Literature for Information Disclosure (Read 2150 times) |
|
Wiscagent
Full Member
Posts: 843
|
 |
Re: Non Patent Literature for Information Disclosu
« Reply #10 on: Aug 23rd, 2006, 2:23pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
As usual Jim, you make valid points; and I'm largely persuaded.
What I was thinking of are some applications - often translations of Japanese applications - that get carried away with adjectives and superlatives. While I might describe an invention as "requiring low energy and having a high signal-to-noise ratio" some applications would be written "super low energy consumption with fantastic, zero distortion signal, perfect for any communication system."
To me that type of hype does nothing to strengthen, and may weaken, a patent application.
Rich T
|
|
 IP Logged |
Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: Non Patent Literature for Information Disclosu
« Reply #11 on: Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, I agree, hyperbole is bad.
"What the present invention achieves is a heretofore unrealized, surprising, and tantalizing result that the greatest minds of yesterday couldn't even dream of. What follows is a surprising, unexpected, and unanticipated tale of discovery and invention that is rivaled by none. In short, we've done no less than put a bicycle handlebar grip on the feather duster!!"
Annoying your reader, whether a patent examiner, juror, or judge, is bad.
Regards.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
Jonathan
Full Member
Posts: 611
|
|
Re: Non Patent Literature for Information Disclosu
« Reply #12 on: Aug 23rd, 2006, 4:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think I saw the bike grip duster in a recent issue of skymall magazine.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dab2d
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
|
Re: Non Patent Literature for Information Disclosu
« Reply #13 on: Aug 27th, 2006, 10:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 23rd, 2006, 12:55pm, JimIvey wrote:
Second, selling the invention can provide motivations for specific features to counter 103 (obviousness) rejections that suggest that the difference(s) between the claim and the prior art are mere design choices without any appreciable benefit.
|
|
Just to add to what Jim said...
examiners will sometines give you a 103 rejection stating that the combination is obvious without art (it is obvious to use metal instead of wood)... However if you can point to a place in the specification where you solve a stated problem, it goes a long way in getting the examiner to remove the arguments.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 28th, 2006, 7:38am by dab2d » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print