1
Becoming a Patent Agent/Lawyer / Re: Potential Work as a Patent Attorney
« on: 07-18-11 at 01:10 pm »
Probably when the government starts defaulting on "guaranteed" student loans.
|
The Intellectual Property Forum |
- 05-20-13 at 11:00 pm
- Welcome, Guest
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.
2
Copyright Forum / Re: Are my songs copywritten?
« on: 07-17-11 at 12:19 pm »
If someone else owns the copyright to the video, then the first thing you should do is get permisison to use the video.
3
Becoming a Patent Agent/Lawyer / Re: Potential Work as a Patent Attorney
« on: 07-16-11 at 11:27 am »
Unless you really want to be a patent attorney, your description doesn't offer employers anything they don't see 100 times a day from more qualified candidates. WHat can you do to set yourself apart? Pass the patent bar, do some pro bono, etc...
If you're not willing to do everything and anything to succeed, then I think you're right... best to cut your losses.
If you're not willing to do everything and anything to succeed, then I think you're right... best to cut your losses.
4
Patent Bar Questions / Re: Ready for the Exam
« on: 07-15-11 at 09:02 am »
Don't just take the exam -- take it under exam conditions. Thus, time yourself. Do it in 25-50 question increments. If you're scoring 70+ in practice exams under exam conditions, you'll do great.
If you have not done so, figure out how to electronically search the MPEP. "cntrl F" and knowing which chapter to look in probabaly saved me on 10 questions I had no clue about. These will be the questions that are so wacky that there's no way you could study for them. That said, the keywords in the question are probably copy/pasted from the MPEP somewhere...
Good luck!!
If you have not done so, figure out how to electronically search the MPEP. "cntrl F" and knowing which chapter to look in probabaly saved me on 10 questions I had no clue about. These will be the questions that are so wacky that there's no way you could study for them. That said, the keywords in the question are probably copy/pasted from the MPEP somewhere...
Good luck!!
5
Copyright Forum / Re: Protecting a story?
« on: 07-14-11 at 11:45 am »
There is no simple yes/no answer to your question.
That said, copying is not limited to "exact" copying -- there is a substantial similarity standard (to an ordinary observer), along with an "access" element to whatever it was that was allegedly copied.
That said, copying is not limited to "exact" copying -- there is a substantial similarity standard (to an ordinary observer), along with an "access" element to whatever it was that was allegedly copied.
6
Trademark Forum / Re: cease and desist - infringement - confusion
« on: 07-12-11 at 11:00 am »
Maybe. There are sometimes 20 factors that come into play. A "confusion" analysis is not limited to the mark and/or goods.
Are they common law protected? or do they have a registration?
Are they common law protected? or do they have a registration?
7
Becoming a Patent Agent/Lawyer / Re: Dilemma: Patent Agent's earning potential
« on: 07-06-11 at 01:58 pm »
It's really an economics matter.
YOu might be worth $150K+, but there are dime a dozen agents who can probably do similar job and will cut less into a partner's cut of the pie.
Unless you bring something else to the table (i.e., portable book), I don't see this working out for you (given the salary you'd prefer).
YOu might be worth $150K+, but there are dime a dozen agents who can probably do similar job and will cut less into a partner's cut of the pie.
Unless you bring something else to the table (i.e., portable book), I don't see this working out for you (given the salary you'd prefer).
8
Patent/Invention Ownership / Re: Reduction to Practice -- Evidence question
« on: 07-06-11 at 10:35 am »Sorry karen, and thank you for your reply, as my reply was a bit misleading. I was not trying to quote the actual standard for reduction to practice. However, upon going down the path of "what is" R2P awhile back, what I gleaned, speaking very generally, was that R2P boiled down to what one of skill would know. In other words, somewhere in the case law the standard is read in view of one of skill in the art. I am going by memory, but that seems to be what I recall. I.e., there's no clear answer or bright line test. It definitely is not a direction anyone should go on purpose, that's for sure. But if it's all ya got, then it's all ya got.
Of course, it suffices to say that if you do not have enablement, you do not have patentability. Two different things (enablement and R2P), but surely interrelated.
You're quite right, OMG, and my reply to you read more harshly than I intended. I agree that evaluating compliance with R2P involves evaluating what a POSITA knows.
No worries.. if it makes you feel better, I did not take your comments personally/harshly.
And indeed my initial comment was vague.
9
Patent Bar Questions / Re: patent bar materials
« on: 07-05-11 at 08:21 pm »
practice questions, and a thorough review of the answers to teh questions, is a very effective approach.
10
Patent/Invention Ownership / Re: Reduction to Practice -- Evidence question
« on: 07-05-11 at 03:55 pm »
It is also the case that I went down the R2P rabbit hole under the guise of 1.131 antedating. My curiosity got the better of me and I started retreading my path and came across this blurb in the MPEP 715.07...
"The ultimate issue is whether the evidence is such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be satisfied to a reasonable certainty that the subject matter necessary to antedate the reference possessed the alleged utility. In re Blake, 358 F.2d 750, 149 USPQ 217 (CCPA 1966)."
This is not necessarily in context.. The point here is just to convince myself that my memory is not completely off target.
Conception, as discussed in 2138.04, also is related to ordinary skill.
"The ultimate issue is whether the evidence is such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be satisfied to a reasonable certainty that the subject matter necessary to antedate the reference possessed the alleged utility. In re Blake, 358 F.2d 750, 149 USPQ 217 (CCPA 1966)."
This is not necessarily in context.. The point here is just to convince myself that my memory is not completely off target.
Conception, as discussed in 2138.04, also is related to ordinary skill.
11
Patent/Invention Ownership / Re: Reduction to Practice -- Evidence question
« on: 07-05-11 at 03:05 pm »
Sorry karen, and thank you for your reply, as my reply was a bit misleading. I was not trying to quote the actual standard for reduction to practice. However, upon going down the path of "what is" R2P awhile back, what I gleaned, speaking very generally, was that R2P boiled down to what one of skill would know. In other words, somewhere in the case law the standard is read in view of one of skill in the art. I am going by memory, but that seems to be what I recall. I.e., there's no clear answer or bright line test. It definitely is not a direction anyone should go on purpose, that's for sure. But if it's all ya got, then it's all ya got.
Of course, it suffices to say that if you do not have enablement, you do not have patentability. Two different things (enablement and R2P), but surely interrelated.
Of course, it suffices to say that if you do not have enablement, you do not have patentability. Two different things (enablement and R2P), but surely interrelated.
12
Patent/Invention Ownership / Re: Reduction to Practice -- Evidence question
« on: 07-05-11 at 01:07 pm »
would one of ordinary skill in the art be able to look at your workbook, CAD, etc., and readily understand how to practice the invention?
13
Obviousness / Re: Demand vs. Long Felt Need
« on: 07-05-11 at 01:01 pm »
also, as a general opinion, if you're going to stick to your guns and argue secondary considerations is the reason for patentability, you might as well start researching "appeal brief"...
14
Patent Agent/Lawyer Careers / Re: Wanted: Patent attorney or agent to file patent
« on: 07-05-11 at 11:27 am »It appears 2 days after my comment first posted Blue state IP attorney/agents are either too busy filing patent applications, have not been granted 6 let alone 3, 4 or 5 mechanical patents in last year or do not follow this blog?You forget another possibility: that your phrasing, however humorous, is indicative of a high-maintenance client.
BTW, am puzzled why state of residence can matter. State law will have no impact except in the ethical rules governing the attorney's practice. Patent law is federal, all the way. And if it is the political orientation of the attorney which is at issue, that can hardly be told from the attorney's location. Would an attorney whose views are liberal and who votes liberal but lives and practices in a "red" state be preferred over one whose views are conservative and votes conservative but lives and practices in a "blue" state?
Not only a problematic client, but one that lumps all practitioners as being compelled to read the OP. Red flags all over the place.
15
Trademark Forum / Re: New class for previously registered mark
« on: 07-05-11 at 08:55 am »
The IC is not the main concern. As long as you are operating in commerce in conformance with the description of goods/services, I wouldn't be so worried about switching IC's.
If you feel the description of goods/services is not entirely accurate or applicable, or you want to add description, it is probably easier to file a 2nd application.
If you feel the description of goods/services is not entirely accurate or applicable, or you want to add description, it is probably easier to file a 2nd application.
Footer
| www.intelproplaw.com |
Terms of Use
iKnight Technologies Inc. |
www.intelproplaw.com |
