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.

Messages - OMG IP

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16
136
What do you mean "lawful to make a demand of FB"?  What is unlawful about that?

And surely you read the fine print in the very lengthy user agreement?  I will summarize: Facebook can do what ever it wants with your FB page.

137
The way back machine/archive is a good way to provide date evidence.

Not in every jurisdiction it isn't!

Not very long ago in Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 16 January 2007, Case Number: T 1134/06 - 3.2.04 [Konami Corporation], the Board was asked to consider the reliability of the Way Back Machine. After due consideration they came down firmly on the side of those who argued that it did not yet offer secure enough evidence, that the system was open to manipulation. Whilst a useful tool in turning up lines of investigation for prior art, online publication alone was not enough to establish DATE evidence.

Writing in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 2 No. 6, June 2007, pp. 354-355, David Rogers, Legal Member of a Board of Appeal at the EPO, commented: "Practitioners who are looking for ‘killer’ prior art would be well advised to stick with the traditional print means, unless they have a considerable body of evidence to support the reliability of an internet disclosure. The case[Konami] also sets out how a party can cast doubt on the reliability of such disclosures."

US courts as a general rule appear to accept that archived websites can provide sound evidence as to date. But if it was possible by evidence and argument to overthrow that presumption in the European courts, it may be possible for a US attorney to do so in yours.

It would certainly suit us to have online disclosure dates admitted. At Research Disclosure we publish non-patent prior art. Each disclosure is published online, date-stamped, but we still have to publish a monthly printed journal and send it to every patent office with all disclosures published IN FULL to satisfy the courts. With developing countries (including China) tending to adopt EPO procedures rather than USPTO ones, it may be that online disclosure will remain unreliable as evidence until web archive services have developed new technology.


meh - I don't buy it.  Where there's smoke there's fire.  If the archive database shows something, it's probably not going to require rocket science to find something admissible.  Certainly teh question here was in regard to an Examiner, and as an Ex-Examiner, I cited URLs w/ teh archive website.

138
The patents should stand on their own.

Was it the same examiner for each app?  If it was the same Examiner, that's some good evidence as to differences.

That being said, if i'm opposing counsel and I see it as an issue, I will look for admissible evidence as to that very thing.

139
Why is there no distance learning or complete online version of the training available?

I agree that is an unexploited area that may be extremely lucrative to the first party that can pull it off successsfully!

140
You can use just about anything these days (word, sound, color, scent, etc.) to indicate a source/origin of goods.

Thus, you can clearly use two words together to do the same thing, regardless of how common the words are.  Do "star" and "bucks" seem uncommon?

TM Infringment is based on the likelihood of confusion standard.  Rights associated with TM's are based on "first use".  If your use is prior to his use, you are probably o.k., but that's making a few assumptions.

141
The way back machine/archive is a good way to provide date evidence.

142
Other / Re: Palins would like a trademark
« on: 02-10-11 at 06:26 am »
Actually, the Palin's would like to register their already existing servicemarks.

There is a short thread in the trademark forum on this topic.

143
Just to slightly add to Karen's point: all about reading size 10 font all day ugh...

144
Patent Filing and Prosecution / Re: Statutory DP
« on: 02-09-11 at 07:18 pm »
It might just be a play on words, but the legal standard is clear:

"same invention" means identical, not similar.  Too me, similar equates to obvious, and identical equates to anticipated.

An "x" comprsing 12 inches.  An "x" comprising 1 foot.

Those are identical.

An "x" comprising 12 inches.  An "x" comprising 13 inches.

Similar, but not identical.


145
Patent Filing and Prosecution / Re: Statutory DP
« on: 02-09-11 at 04:23 pm »
karen - spot on.  I'm glad it was as obvious as I thought and that I am not crazy. :)

Here is the exact words: "the claimed language refers to "blah", which is similar to what the applied art discloses."

It also stands out that he said "applied art", and not "claims", but there's not enough room to even make that point.

I digress...

Even if he just re-does the wording of the rejection, at least I raised the point.  The more important part of this PABR is the 103 rejection.

146
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?

147
Patent Filing and Prosecution / Re: Dependent claims
« on: 02-08-11 at 09:07 pm »
This thread is still going?  I'm impressed... Zzzzz...

148
Think of a claim around a single aspect of technology as a sphere.  If that sphere has value to Megacorp, they have no problems trying to get that sphere as large as possible and/or obtaining all the spheres in the area, whether it means filing really, really broad claims, and then amending toward the commercial embodiment, as may be necessary to get to allowance.

This analogy makes more sense if I can draw it on paper in front of you. :)

149

 AFAIK you can freely copy entire passages from these patents, e.g. the disclaimers, since there is no copyright in patents, and you can of course model your own application on these.

I believe you are right in that patents by themselves are not copyright protected, but that does not mean the text and/or images in the patent are not copyrighted.  Be careful.

150
Something to keep in mind: an NDA, and an issued patent for that matter, are only as good as your ability to enforce them.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16


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 0.172 seconds with 21 queries.