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
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.

Is it Patentable? / Novel database based method
« on: 09-28-17 at 08:12 am »
If someone invented a new method of creating traceability for surgical implants by creating a database with more ample ways of linking an implant to a patient and/or to a hospital/clinic and/or to a surgeon, could that method in principle be patentable?
What concrete criteria should be fulfilled for it to be patentable?
Would that also apply in the EPO jurisdictions?
Thank you very much for your thoughts. 

Thank you all for your valuable contributions.
It is the intention to remove all visible markings (includng the trademark) from the purchased components that will be used in the new dentist tool.
However, the original manufacturer will most probably be able to identify it as his/her product. It is not the intention to hide anything to the extent that the product (the 'pen' in the hypo) could become unrecognizable for its original manufacturer.
Moreover, the purchased product is not protected by any patent.

So, based on your replies, I guess there will be no IP related issues in this case. Right?

Let's presume an inventor invented a new instrument for dentists.
He discovers that instead of manufacturing all the parts for the new instrument, he can buy one specific brand and type of ballpoint pen, remove the ink cartridge of the pen and replace that by a specifically manufactured dentistry tool part.
Is the inventor allowed to sell the dentist tool that is obtained in this way as his product?     
Thank you.

lazyexaminer, thank you.
You are right, it has nothing to do with fairness. That remark is just an emotional instead of a rational remark.
I'll tell my friend to look into the route of declaration evidence.   

Are there any unwritten rules to take into account for drafting a patent application for a food recipe in order to increase the chance of preventing rejection based on obviousness?
It seems unfair to me that a new food recipe is difficult to patent, while a new paperclip (in a manner of speaking) isn't.
One of my friends has come up with a new recipe for a food product that traditionally has been made from meat for almost a century now.
He is the first one who replaced meat by fish. All food processing technologists experts who he consulted (under an NDA) were astonished by the route chosen by him and by the result, both in taste and texture of the food product.

His patent attorney told him that the chance for him to pass the non-obviousness test is very small.
For almost a century now, apparently nobody (including the food technologists of R&D department of food giants) came up with the idea to replace meat by fish, in making this product. Therefore, you would think that my friend's concept is not obvious.

I would be very thankful for any thoughts on drafting a patent application for my friend's food recipe that has a better chance of passing the non-obviousness examination.

Thank you.

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 0.116 seconds with 21 queries.