The Intellectual Property Forum

If it were me, I would contact all of the applicable computer companies that might have an interest and find out what their idea submission requirements are.

Some accept patent pending ideas, some only accept patented ideas, and some do not accept any.

Keep in mind that once you make this information "public", people can start using it to their own chagrin, subject only to the rights provided by any claims of an issued patent in the applicable country.  Most likely Megacorp will dictate submission terms, and will have no interest in being bound by any agreements that protect your client.

It's just business.

Quote from: OMG IP on 02-04-11 at 12:53 pm

I had to go see for myself (not sure if these links will actually work):

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...007:fl2lqu.2.3
[85130638]

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...007:fl2lqu.2.2
[85170226]

Those links will not work.  You can use the following links:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85130638

and


http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85170226

These aren't unusual.  They are for essentially motivational speaker services.  I hate articles that talk about someone-or-other "trademarking" this or "trademarking" that.  Even the New York Times does it.  It's wrong.  No one owns a trademark in the abstract, only in connection with specific goods or services (dilution issues aside).

- Jeff

ah, thanks for the correct links Jeff.

And I am right there with you on the pet peeve!

Awesome!

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

Gotta love capitalism.

Quote from: OMG IP on 02-03-11 at 04:50 pm

If you mean a dependent claim, allowable if rewritten independent form, then I do not disagree with that.  It harkens back to my original post using the phrase "if" the IC is not allowable...  presumably if you roll in allowable subject matter to an IC, then your IC is no longer unpatentable.

Your distinction does not make sense in light of your position on the treatment of dependent claims.

ok

Quote from: OMG IP on 02-03-11 at 04:48 pm

Quote from: khazzah

Is one of my guesses right? Can you further clarify your position?

No problem.  Surely we're all pretty much on the same page.  Probably just a position of semantics on my part, as well as the fact that often times I have to account for economic considerations in formulating response strategy.

In any case, let me repeat my two broad statements:

1) In a perfect world, sure, why not. 
In other words, if time and money are not object, by all means, beat every potential winnable argument for dependent claims to death.

2)  if your independent claim is not allowable, it is a waste of time to even discuss the examination of the dependent beyond brief argument.

In reality, time and money are always an object.  Note the key, key use of the word "IF".  Of course, if you want to argue one of the dependent limitations, if rolled into the independent claim, would make the claim allowable, that is a whole nother ball game.  It goes back to my original usage of the word "IF.

above nothing else, this is just a personal strategy.  If others prefer to spend hours arguing about dependnet claims, by all means, feel free.  I never said anyone was wrong for doing so.

I am afraid that we are talking about two different things.  Correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me that you're talking about the applicant (and/or applicant's representative) making arguments about dependent claims (i.e. in a Rule 111/116 submission, Pre-Appeal Request, or Appeal Brief).

In contrast, I'm talking about the examiner's duty to present a prima facie case of unpatentability of each claim.  I agree that, generally speaking, applicants want to minimize their arguments on the written record, and that it is generally unhelpful (and potentially harmful) to discuss dependent claims, when their parent independent claims should already be allowable.

But, regardless of how much argument applicants put on the record, it is still the examiner's duty to properly reject each claim.  Right?  A lot of examiners have an attitude of "well, I'll give most of my attention to the dependent claims, and only make cursory remarks or rejections about the dependent claims."  That's not right.  One of the IPWatchdog interviewees discusses this issue during his interview (I want to say Dickinson).

No, I think we're pretty much talking about the same thing, ableit from maybe a different approaches.  You certainly can point out to the Examiner everything you just said.  Then what?  You've still got an unallowable application.   Even if you go to appeal and really make your point, the board will send the application right back to the Examiner.

“In reality, if your independent claim is not allowable, it is a waste of time to even discuss the examination of the dependent beyond brief argument.”

I also respectfully disagree with this reasoning.  Perhaps I misunderstand the statement.  Each claim is its own 'invention'.  Each dependent claim further narrows the independent claim from which it depends.  Thus, even if the independent claim is shown not to be patentable, the narrower dependent claim, with its further limitation(s), may be eligible for patent protection.  Now, there are times, where if I have a great argument regarding patentability of the independent claim, I won't spend a lot of time arguing patentability of the (or some of the) respective dependent claim(s), but it really depends on the specific circumstances.   

i surmise we're on the same page.

Is one of my guesses right? Can you further clarify your position?

No problem.  Surely we're all pretty much on the same page.  Probably just a position of semantics on my part, as well as the fact that often times I have to account for economic considerations in formulating response strategy.

In any case, let me repeat my two broad statements:

1) In a perfect world, sure, why not. 
In other words, if time and money are not object, by all means, beat every potential winnable argument for dependent claims to death.

2)  if your independent claim is not allowable, it is a waste of time to even discuss the examination of the dependent beyond brief argument.

In reality, time and money are always an object.  Note the key, key use of the word "IF".  Of course, if you want to argue one of the dependent limitations, if rolled into the independent claim, would make the claim allowable, that is a whole nother ball game.  It goes back to my original usage of the word "IF.

above nothing else, this is just a personal strategy.  If others prefer to spend hours arguing about dependnet claims, by all means, feel free.  I never said anyone was wrong for doing so.