Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Patentstudent

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
still_learning and Toot Aps Esroh, thank you for your replies.
I guess I will try to use one indepedent claim with the novel features that all embodiments will need and claim the additional features in dependent claims. 

Hi Robert K S.
Yes, we are.

Let's assume that we have invented an improved hammer.
The hammer includes ten novel and non-obvious features that are all aimed at improving the usability of the hammer.
The features include for example (hypo):
- the hammer is double headed and one head is made of steel (to hammer on nails) and the other from rubber to hammer on something without damaging it
- the handle of the hammer comprises a special recess for one's thumb, which makes holding and using the hammer easier
- etc.
If indeed all the features improve the usability of the hammer, what should we pay special attention to (or what are the do's and dont's) in order to prevent a rejection due to lack of unity of invention when including and claiming all ten features in one application?

Thank you again for your valued views. 

Thank you, Bartmans.
We're looking at a few European jurisdictions. So, the route of claiming the use seems to be open.

Is it Patentable? / Is this method in principle patentable ?
« on: 04-09-18 at 05:20 am »
I have the following hypothetical invention:

Let's presume that we discovered that growing certain vegetables on free deck space of ships or other man-made floating structures has a benefit in terms of the growing speed. Would this surface (i.e. ship decks) in principle be patentable as part of a method for growing such vegetables?

Thank you for your answers.   

And yes, claims not supported by the original CA spec will have the later (PCT) filing date only.  Whether examiners pay much attention to the differing dates in their prior art searches varies.  I've had only a few US examiners cite intervening art for certain claims, s/he having reviewed my priority document and pointing out that it does not support those claims so the intervening art is legally prior art.  EPO examiners seem much more likely to examine the priority document and split priority up by claims supported/unsupported by the priority document.

Toot Aps Esroh, thank you for this clear answer. It is very helpful.

I have a basic question with respect to PCT applications.
Let's presume that I filed a national patent application in Canada for a new widget.
If I file a PCT application before the end of the priority year claiming priority based on my Canadian patent application, can I add new subject matter relating to the widget for features that I invented after filing the Canadian patent application?
In case of the affirmative, I assume that the added subject matter and the pertaining claims will obtain a different priority date (i.e. the date of filing of the PCT application), in contrast to the rest of the widget which will have the filing date of the Canadian patent application as priority date.
Is this assumption correct?   
Thank you for your

NJ Patent1 and lazyexaminer, thank you for your suggestions.
This is very helpful.

Let's assume that we have developed an improved chair.
However, the improvements are not likely to be considered non-obvious.
Is there a general 'trick' or 'recipe' to prevent a rejection based on lack of non-obviousness? 

Of course, we donít want to add non-obvious features that are not required for the intended use of the chair and hence donít have any added value in terms of real protection of our improved chair concept.

Thank you in advance. 

still-learning, thank you.
Based on your (and lazyexaminer's and ThomasPaine's) comments/question I have come to realize that such a method claim does not have added value, even if permissible.
I won't fall into this trap again.

Lazyexaminer, thank you very much.

Yes, I was being lazy and basically just wanted to focus on the permissibility of the lack of method steps in the method claim.

Let's presume a patent application for a novel and inventive device has a number of device claims, for example:

1. A device comprising elements A and B.
2. The device of claim 1 comprising an element C.

Can these device claims now be followed by a method claim in the following form:

3. A method for the manufacturing of the device according to the preceding claims.

My specific question is, whether this method claim that does not disclose any features of the method will be accepted due to the mere fact that the claimed features of the device are novel and non-obvious? 

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patent Infringement / PCT application - modified claims
« on: 11-04-17 at 08:36 am »
I am looking at a published PCT application. The official examination of the application revealed that the applicant must modify most of his claims if he wants to rescvue them, at least partially.
Can anybody advise where I should look to see if the applicant has filed a modified claim set, and in case of the affirmative, where I can read these modified claims?
Thank you.

Is it Patentable? / Re: Novel database based method
« on: 09-29-17 at 04:55 am »
Thank you MYK and ExaminerBob.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 21 queries.