Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 on: Today at 07:06 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by ProSeGuy
A 103 with multiple references. Prior Art Apparatus did not have venting, but "reasonable" to add, found a related reference with venting (in view of).

First office action of RCE. Examiner refused to acknowledge previous prior art cited in earlier office actions would never work until filed an affidavit and showed test results and docs about the inherent characteristics of the elements.

 on: Today at 06:21 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by nsbe22
yea i know

yea 7-10. Looks like I may get a 9 instead...if that change goes through it'll be lower but a negligible difference that I can live with.

Just be aware that your production quota will be higher starting as a 9 than it will be as a 7.

 on: Today at 06:10 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by smgsmc
What rejection did you get?  A 102?    A 103 (single reference?  single reference with Official Notice?  multi-reference?)?

What stage of prosecution are you at, e.g., first office action?

 on: Today at 03:18 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by ProSeGuy
Thanks smgsmc for the reply.  Answers to your questions:

a) Improvement claim - Jepson format
1. An improvement for an apparatus coating x with y, apparatus includes additional elements a, b,  improvement comprising:
novel configuration using x and y.

b) US application

c) Prior art inventive step was stabilizing y not coating x. Examiner reasoned coating was possible

 on: Today at 01:48 pm 
Started by dbmax - Last post by dbmax
Thanks mersenne. And for those who have not already noticed:

After updating the "Attorney Docket No" field in the "Application Data" view, the updated "Attorney Docket No" in the "Applications by Customer" view will not be visible or sortable until sometime after midnight.

 on: Today at 08:15 am 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by smgsmc
(a)  It would be helpful if you would explain what you mean by an "improvement claim", along with an example. 

(b)  Are you talking about an application in the US?

(c)  You mentioned that the prior art does not mention coating.  So was the prior art machine designed for some other purpose, and the Examiner said it was capable of being used for coating?

 on: Today at 04:21 am 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by ProSeGuy
Hi, Have a few questions:

Prior art apparatus teaches:
1) Same elements as invention
2) Limited coating of some elements as interpreted by examiner, prior art does not mention coating

Invention: coating apparatus that substantially coats all contents in a container using a novel configuration of the same elements.

Prior art tested using novel configuration fails to substantially coat all (only 25 % at best) due to inadequate closure mechanism, closure configuration not designed for increased pressure as the invention.

Questions: 1) Write claim as an improvement claim ?
                2) Introduce additional claim elements and stay away from the improvement claim ?
                3) Submit affidavit showing failure of prior art with novel configuration ?
                4) Submit affidavit showing unexpected results of tested invention compared to tested prior art ?
Thanks for your thoughts.

 on: Yesterday at 02:54 pm 
Started by oxfordrama - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Back to OP's OP, the only advice I have is not to tank your upcoming 1L year.  Top 3rd minimum, top 5th is better and top 10% better still.  Although Penn doesn't "rank" as such, you're still graded on a curve and interviewing firms know what's what based on your grades.

 on: Yesterday at 02:06 pm 
Started by oxfordrama - Last post by MYK
I lived through it, I don't need some libtard's "fake news" take on it.

 on: Yesterday at 12:58 pm 
Started by oxfordrama - Last post by ThomasPaine
You should take some history lessons.

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


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.266 seconds with 18 queries.