Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New registrations are now permitted.

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.

Topics - OMG IP

Pages: [1]
1
Patent Filing and Prosecution / Here we go again... ROA stuff
« on: 06-17-11 at 03:58 pm »
And the hits just keep coming from the patent office...

So, I am looking at an OA with multiple 102(b) rejections.  Unfortunately some of the 102(b) rejections are improper in that the publication date is not 1 year or more before the application EFD.

I am vexed as to how to proceed without getting my bang for buck.  In other words, I do not want to do the Examiner's job, but I don't want to get to a final action based on a crappy office action, either.

Technically, the references that are not proper 102(b) will easily fit under (a) and/or (e).  I doubt I have the ability to antedate.

The proper 102(b) rejection is terrible art and does not reject all claims.

What would you do?  Would you presume the references to be 102(a) and/or (e) in order to save trouble, noting to the Examiner that the references do not qualify under 102(b)?

I guess in essence I am saying I have an office action in front of me that does not properly reject all claims.  But I don't see how I can avoid getting a FOA based on my response where I will have to amend to get past the terrible reference.

2
Patent Filing and Prosecution / After Final Amendments & Adv Action
« on: 06-07-11 at 05:05 pm »
So in responding after final, I amended IC 1 to include limitations of DC 2, and essentially argued why what was DC 2, and what is now IC 1, is patentable.  I did this because I find amendments that require new search and consideration are entered 0.01% of the time.  To me, adding in a limitation from a previously examineded DC is not a "new" amendment.

Nonetheless, I received an AA stating: "amendments touching the merits of the case...may be admitted upon a proper showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.  No such showing has been presented."

What am I missing?  The rolled up limitation is cut and paste; it is black and white that it was already examined/searched.

I was fully expecting a "not persuasive" AA.   Thanks for any help.... never experienced this before.

3
Other / Therasense
« on: 05-31-11 at 08:40 am »
Is the Therasense decision being discussed anywhere?  I looked briefly though the forums and didn't see anything...

thx

4
Trademark Forum / Disney Trademarks “Seal Team 6″
« on: 05-19-11 at 10:10 am »
Gotta love Capitalism!

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689

"In a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, The Walt Disney Company has trademarked “Seal Team 6,” which also happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama Bin Laden."


5
Other / IP Insurance
« on: 05-18-11 at 11:01 am »
Any referrals to reputable (and reasonably priced) providers?

TY.

6
Patent Filing and Prosecution / Statutory DP
« on: 02-09-11 at 03:57 pm »
So I am doing a pre-appeal where I have a few things that need to be addressed, including a stat DP rejection.  In making the rejection, the Examiner states: the claims are rejected because they are similar to the prior art (claims).

Is it just me or does anyone else notice anything incredibly wrong with that rejection basis?

7
Trademark Forum / Coming Soon: Palin(TM) and Bristol(TM)
« on: 02-04-11 at 12:52 pm »
Awesome!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110204/pl_yblog_theticket/sarah-palin-files-paperwork-to-trademark-her-name

Gotta love capitalism.

8
I have an Invention ... Now What? / How to develop a prototype (on the cheap)?
« on: 01-25-11 at 10:31 pm »
So I've got some patent pending technology that I am considering having a prototype device developed.

I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Strike that.

With limited resources to devote to such an undertaking, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I seem to recall there are groups out there that provide affordable, maybe even free/subsidized help to small entity inventors.

I am also trying to submit the technology to Megacorp(s), but that is what it is.

Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated, and I suppose this would be good info to know for clients in similar boat, too.


9
Copyright Forum / ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, etc.
« on: 01-21-11 at 09:33 pm »
Anyone ever been solicited by these companies making an inference that you/your client needed a license from them?  And I mean, in a hypothetical world, "they" don't know what you're doing... they just know there have been some public performances, and that it might have included an unauthorized reproduction of one of their clients copyrighted material.

10
Obviousness / Impermissible Hindsight
« on: 12-21-10 at 11:40 pm »
I hate going down the KSR highway if I don't have a solid "combination lacks all elements" argument.

But in a present case, I think I am going to use hindsight, too.

For example, my client has an application that states: a 3-pronged widget is beneficial for reasons X, Y, Z.

Independnet claim directed to a body with a 3 pronged widget.  Dependnet claim directed to a body with a second 3 pronged widget rotationally offset from the first one.

The Examiner asserts Ref A teaches 3 pronged widget, and Ref B teaches offset stuff, and concludes obvious to combine b/c reasons X, y, and Z.  HOWEVER, neither A nor B discusss X, Y, or Z.  Moreover, B teaches offset stuff because of reason Q.

Am I on the right track here?

as an addendum, what's even more irritating is that Ref B is expressly directed to a 4-pronged thingy....   >:(

11
Trademark Forum / LOC - help settle a bet
« on: 12-14-10 at 10:15 pm »
Currently registered:  FABRIC-X NEW, a soap for cleaning Fabric-X

new application: FABRIC-XNU, repair kits for repairing Fabric-X (dyes, tools, etc., but no soap(s))

different IC's.

I say no LOC, but maybe at a 52-48 clip (i.e., not a slam dunk either way).

What say you?

a couple of tidbits.. the cost of the soap is about $5; the kits go from $15-20.

Analagously, I thought of first aid kits.... would I be confused as to the source/origin of an anti-bacteria spray versus an entire kit with bandaids, tape, knife, etc.?

Pages: [1]


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

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

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.263 seconds with 20 queries.