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: Yesterday at 11:49 am 
Started by mersenne - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi

That first drawing . . . it took me a while to realize the viewing perspective was from below.  I thought they were showing one of those impossible-to-make four-dimensional things like this: http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Impossible_Drawing.jpg


Thanks, and thanks for the fun "impossible" drawing. 

The only way I can get that leaf bag frame in Fig.1 to "click" in my head for proper perspective is if I rotate the figure 90° widdershins (which of course at PTO's website can only be accomplished by rotating it 3 times CW).  In that position, it makes sense to my brain. 

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 11:12 am 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by ClanLam
Great info, thanks. Question, I have read the posts from some time ago re "continuation patent off a design" and I thought this may be ripe for a filing of a utility "off" this design. But then, question: can you put ALL the utility application-text and drawings-in the design case as filed; then later do a Prelim Amendment deleting all the utility material, basically leaving the design drawings and text; then within a year file a continuation or CIP utility "off" the design, and get the filing date of the design for material in the utility that was in the design as originally filed? If this idea is all gobbledygook, it won't be the first time. Thank you.

 3 
 on: Yesterday at 10:11 am 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by midwestengineer
Thanks for the replies. Looks like there will be 12 or so drawings, 6 of them for each side of the two figures (all shown separately).

Are you not including variations where different bits of the design are disclaimed?

Also, is there any possibility that your client may want to file internationally?  If so, you need to consider the support that you need for other jurisdictions (some jurisdictions requires view other than top/bottom/left/right/back/front and others don't accept dashed lines as disclaimer).

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 06:19 am 
Started by eph.kozlowskiandcompany - Last post by eph.kozlowskiandcompany
Hi,
All of you,
I'm looking for trademark registration services in Ontario that perfectly suit my business needs and goals.  so can you suggest me a law firm name like Kozlowski & Company ?

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 06:00 am 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by smgsmc
I do it the same way mhgy does: "wherein adding detergent comprises: ..."

Incidentally, I was trained to avoid "step" in method claims (and to avoid discussing the "steps" of a method in responses to OAs).  This was ~10 years ago, and I don't recall what the rationale was, but it's a habit I haven't broken, and I haven't had any bad outcomes from not using "steps."

“Steps for” invokes 112(f) [pre-AIA 112 p.6].  Some practitioners feel that “steps of” is too readily confounded with “steps for” and therefore avoid it.  I’ve never had an Examiner invoke 112(f)/112 p.6 for “steps of”; and I believe that a CAFC case ruled that “steps of” does not invoke 112(f)/112 p.6 [I checked into that many moons ago, so I’m not certain at this moment].  Nevertheless, some in-house counsel prohibit “steps of”, while other in-house counsel (even at the same corporate client) insist on “steps of” [probably depends on what they were originally taught at the beginning of their careers].  In these instances, I follow the directives of in-house counsel.  Left to myself, I prefer “steps of” simply because I think the language reads smoother, particularly in the OP’s instance of referring back to a previous step.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 05:38 am 
Started by mersenne - Last post by MYK
I can't even tell what that is -- a 4-legged rectangular frame with a wheel or pulley near the free end of two adjacent legs?  What sort of particles does it collect?  And how does it do it?

That first drawing . . . it took me a while to realize the viewing perspective was from below.  I thought they were showing one of those impossible-to-make four-dimensional things like this: http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Impossible_Drawing.jpg

The assignee's name is "The Last Leaf, LLC", which apparently relates to an O. Henry story, but also to a company producing leaf baggers:

http://www.theleafbagger.com/pdf/Leafbagger_R1_combined.pdf

Note their disclaimer section, which warns about the dangers of gorilla forks.  Apparently poking a gorilla with a fork may be hazardous to your health.  Better to use a spoon.

 7 
 on: 07-26-16 at 09:13 pm 
Started by fb - Last post by fb
The posts get emailed via notifications to me.

 8 
 on: 07-26-16 at 09:02 pm 
Started by fb - Last post by Rabid Levity
Looks like Rabid Levity's reply got lost in the server downtime:

Quote
In your first post, I guess it is just an efficient way of packing many alternatives into a single claim, when on your original view of the art you are aware of...


Interesting - I guess I did post that just ahead of the recent server down issue.  How did you manage to capture it?  (looking at my profile's comments, it is absent).

Thank you!

 9 
 on: 07-26-16 at 07:28 pm 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by cheesepep
Thanks for the replies. Looks like there will be 12 or so drawings, 6 of them for each side of the two figures (all shown separately).

 10 
 on: 07-26-16 at 07:26 pm 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by cheesepep
Thanks, unfortunately Track One is not for design applications. But, yes, AE is quite onerous.

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 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.