Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 01:26 am 
Started by novobarro - Last post by dbmax
Tangentially related:
Since 1976, PFTD shows 3827 issued patents using the term "inter alia" or "interalia" in the abstract.
Since 2001, PGPUB shows 4372 published applications using the term "inter alia" or "interalia" in the abstract.
I wonder if this small number of practitioners is smarter than the rest of us, or just more cautious.
db

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 05:17 pm 
Started by ComicJam - Last post by ComicJam
Thank you for your speedy and insightful reply, MYK.
I believe the English narrator is (or was) a NASA one, so my next step would be to email Roscosmos.

Fingers crossed!

 3 
 on: Yesterday at 04:12 pm 
Started by tvm - Last post by MYK
Is this a one-off for personal use, or something that is going to be used commercially?

Who took the photo?

If it was a selfie with the band, and you're just making the shirt for yourself, then you are likely ok.

If some other photographer took it, then that photographer is the copyright owner.  If you're selling it commercially, then you have to worry about the band's publicity rights.

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 04:10 pm 
Started by ComicJam - Last post by MYK
U.S. government works are (mostly) copyright-free.  However, Soyuz rockets launch from Baikonur in Kazakhstan under the control of the Russian government by way of Roscosmos.  If you want to be safe, you would need to figure out who originated the clip, since it might or might not have been made by NASA, and then figure out what laws apply, and then maybe get a license if necessary.

You could probably just assume that it was either NASA or Roscosmos/Russia, and call Roscosmos to see what their and Russia's copyright guidelines are.  If they say it's public domain, then you've got both bases covered since NASA already is.  If they say they require licensing, then you'd need to figure out which side created the audio.  If you want to be really safe, you would need to make sure who the originator of the audio was, since there's some small chance it might have been an unknown third party.

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 02:12 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by Toot Aps Esroh
Some clients insist on the abstract reflecting only the broadest claim, no more, no less, presumably because at some point in the past they got burned on this in litigation and developed it as a "foolish consistency" type rule.  They don't seem to demand that the abstract later be amended along with the claim(s) during prosecution, so that rule doesn't make much sense to me...


Fair enough.  One of the joys of being in-house is not having to deal with such.  Of course, there's a lot of other corporate crap that doesn't make much sense to take its place.   :D



, ... just like it doesn't make sense to me that an abstract "must" refer only to elements shown in a single drawing.   

I remember reading that thread when you originated it, but could not understand where you were finding the requirement that the abstract "must" refer to elements only from a single drawing.



In any case, I usually don't find the abstract to be a good place to summarize the entire disclosure, owing to the word length limitation...

For me the word limit is a good reason to stay at the 30K foot level of description.  It should be sufficient that the public doing a subject matter search by abstract finds my patents, but (outside of client demands which you and jeff and novobarro apparently face) no reason to try to limit it to my claim.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 01:58 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by Robert K S
The purpose of the abstract is to reflect your technical disclosure.

Some clients insist on the abstract reflecting only the broadest claim, no more, no less, presumably because at some point in the past they got burned on this in litigation and developed it as a "foolish consistency" type rule.  They don't seem to demand that the abstract later be amended along with the claim(s) during prosecution, so that rule doesn't make much sense to me, just like it doesn't make sense to me that an abstract "must" refer only to elements shown in a single drawing.  In any case, I usually don't find the abstract to be a good place to summarize the entire disclosure, owing to the word length limitation, and so I generally try to limit its focus to the subject matter attempting to be captured with the claims, rewriting or amending it as appropriate with any continuation or divisional that might be sought.

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 12:55 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by Toot Aps Esroh
Yes, the abstract should be amended to reflect the claims in the continuation.  It may be as easy as just removing the word bluetooth.

For some continuations, the claims are completely different, and then you would rewrite the abstract from scratch.


The purpose of the abstract is to reflect your technical disclosure.  I recognize that many practitioners use this as a place to dump a regular prose version of the main claim(s), but that's not really the original intention of the thing.

If you write your original abstract to generally reflect the technical disclosure, there should be no need to re-write upon divisional or continuation filing.

However, if you (e.g.) inherited an abstract narrowly tailored to a first claim set filed and now are filing a con, I can see there might be a desire to redraft the abstract in the con to more broadly generally reflect the entire disclosure.

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 08:25 am 
Started by ComicJam - Last post by ComicJam
Hello all,

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

I have used an audio sample from the Soyuz TMA-06M launch.

After reading NASA's Media Usage Guidelines, I am still uncertain if I am able to use NASA audio samples in a track that I have written.
It also mentions that images, audio, video etc. are “generally not copyrighted”.

I am asking this as I hope the track will eventually release it on Spotify, Apple Music etc. for purchase and streaming.
However, if I am not permitted to use the sample, I will remove it and change it for something that I am able to, or simply not release the track.

I emailed NASA twice about this, but have gained no reply. Hence why I finally created an account here. :)

Thank you all for your time.

PS. I wanted to post links to the video I used, but I still need to be approved.

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 07:30 am 
Started by examiner_bio - Last post by EvilLost
If it is minor, I would just call the Examiner up. Otherwise, I submit a general transmittal letter; I think there is an option for "Incoming Misc. Communication" or something similar.

 10 
 on: 08-13-18 at 06:48 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by jeff.oneill
Yes, the abstract should be amended to reflect the claims in the continuation.  It may be as easy as just removing the word bluetooth.

For some continuations, the claims are completely different, and then you would rewrite the abstract from scratch.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


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 0.094 seconds with 19 queries.