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 7 ... 10
 11 
 on: Today at 01:57 pm 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi mersenne,

Thank you very much!

Here is my version which may be better than yours:

A first structure is replaced by A first of the structures.

You commented: if you have "the" in a claim, the words after "the" are supposed to appear earlier in the claim, following the word "a" or "an" (or in your example, one or more).

Here is another example that I see in some patent claims:

...in the event when ... (situation 1)

...in the event when ... (situation 2)

Should it be better to use "in an event when..."

Here is another example:

... comprising following:

Does it need "the following"?

A lot of times the use of "the" seems to be very confusing to a person who has English as second language!

I even check every "the" in my claims to make sure that each of words after the has antecedent a or an.

Your comments are very valuable to me!!!

Weng

 12 
 on: Today at 01:38 pm 
Started by Robert K S - Last post by Robert K S
As best I can tell, we're still waiting on a Federal Circuit ruling in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharms., oral arguments having taken place last October 4.

Also, it seems to me that if secret sales do not bar patentability, offers for sale would also not present a bar to patentability, unless those offers made public enabling details of the invention.  Agree/disagree?

 13 
 on: Today at 01:27 pm 
Started by PaulWeathers - Last post by smgsmc

Any comments?


Yeah, there are so many defects in your proposed claim set that it would take way too much time to point them all out.  It's quite clear that if you want to pursue this matter you need to hire a professional.

 14 
 on: Today at 01:04 pm 
Started by PaulWeathers - Last post by still_learnin
No offense intended, but speaking as a business owner (and not an attorney) I wouldn't waste money/time trying to get a patent on something like this. You have to look at it from a business standpoint. Who would you sue, the guy who owns the car? How would you prove the paint layers infringe without $$$ analyzing them? Do you really believe anyone would actually allow their car paint to be analyzed by you, just so you can sue them? 

I agree that "observability" is a desired feature of a claim. But you don't necessarily have to analyze the paint before filing a lawsuit. The standard is more akin to a reasonable belief of infringement. Once you file the lawsuit, you can analyze the paint as part of discovery.

But filing a lawsuit costs real money, and mybrainisfull makes some very good points.

Who would you sue, the guy who owns the car?

It's true that claims which are infringed only by end users/customers are less desirable. However, he could also sue the manufacturer of the car.

Some ideas, inventions, techniques, are better suited to be kept as trade secrets, rather than trying to get a patent on them. I think yours might be one of them. If you truly did come up with something unique that is also commercially viable, I think a better approach would be to promote & sell it as a branded proprietary product/system. And, if it requires some novel application techniques, possibly create a network of authorized/certified paint shops that have been taught by you how to properly apply it.

All good points. The decision to pursue patent protection is a business decision.


 15 
 on: Today at 12:53 pm 
Started by PaulWeathers - Last post by still_learnin
Any comments?

Why are you claiming the entire car rather than the door? Why are you claiming the door rather than a process of coating the door?

What's the novelty? Appears to be something to do with the size of titanium particles in a lacquer. Is the range of particle size novel in and of itself?

Are multiple layers are required for novelty? Is there a relationship between the layers and the particle size, i.e., something like the inner layer has smaller particles than the outer layer?

You need to think carefully about the minimum set of features required to avoid the prior art, and claim exactly that.

 16 
 on: Today at 12:31 pm 
Started by Robert K S - Last post by Robert K S
A district court ruled that a secret sale is not a "sale" under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that would bar patentability of an invention sold to a buyer who was, for example, bound by an NDA.  It seems as if the USPTO agrees (relevant portion of article quoted below) (see also U.S. amicus brief available from PatentlyO).  Has there been any further development on this issue?  Has anyone here run into this?  I am interested in both scenarios:

(1) Where all sales have been under NDA, and
(2) Where no details of the operation of the invention in the product sold were disclosed, and a buyer/user would not notice/realize/understand that the invention was in operation from normal use of the purchased product.

Quote
"This appeal presents this court’s first opportunity to construe the AIA’s on-sale bar,” the USPTO told the Federal Circuit. “Pursuant to the plain language, purpose, and structure of the AIA, the court should hold that the statute means what it says: an invention is only 'on sale' under the AIA if the sale or offer for sale makes the invention 'available to the public.”

Since the parties do not dispute that Helsinn’s pre-filing license agreements with two companies were not public, the lower court’s decision should be affirmed, the office said.

Prior to the passage of the AIA in 2011, courts had for decades given the on-sale bar a wide scope by holding that even non-public sales prior to filing could trigger the bar. The USPTO said those decisions were wrong and the bar was only ever intended to apply to public sales.

The USPTO said Congress made that explicit when it passed the AIA by amending the statute to read that patents are available unless the invention was "in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date." By adding the words “otherwise available to the public” to the statute, lawmakers made clear that only public sales trigger the bar, the USPTO said.

“Congress thereby made explicit what the statutory phrase ‘on sale’ had always implied — that the sale or offer for sale of an invention acts as a bar to patentability only if the sale makes the invention ‘available to the public,’” the office said.

Congress amended the statute specifically to correct decisions of the courts of appeals misinterpreting the on-sale bar to encompass secret sales, the office said.

"The on-sale bar was never intended to reach secret sales," it said. "Rather, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, the on-sale bar reflects Congress's judgment that an inventor should not be permitted to remove an invention from the public domain after the invention has been placed there through a public sale or offer for sale."

 17 
 on: Today at 11:55 am 
Started by PaulWeathers - Last post by mybrainisfull
No offense intended, but speaking as a business owner (and not an attorney) I wouldn't waste money/time trying to get a patent on something like this. You have to look at it from a business standpoint. Who would you sue, the guy who owns the car? How would you prove the paint layers infringe without $$$ analyzing them? Do you really believe anyone would actually allow their car paint to be analyzed by you, just so you can sue them? 

Some ideas, inventions, techniques, are better suited to be kept as trade secrets, rather than trying to get a patent on them. I think yours might be one of them. If you truly did come up with something unique that is also commercially viable, I think a better approach would be to promote & sell it as a branded proprietary product/system. And, if it requires some novel application techniques, possibly create a network of authorized/certified paint shops that have been taught by you how to properly apply it.

 18 
 on: Today at 11:11 am 
Started by jtyshxq - Last post by midwestengineer
Thanks for your reply. I have to try my best to survive.

Big law does not care that you're trying your best to survive.  You can't argue your merits or that you gave it your best if they don't like your work product or you.

Have a backup plan.  Be prepared to get out.  Keep touch with multiple recruiters to keep your options open.  Network like crazy.

 19 
 on: Today at 11:08 am 
Started by Patentstudent - Last post by still_learnin
NJ Patent1, it is envisioned that the device can be supplied both as an integral part of the towing cable and as an add-on device.

Then I'd draft two different independent claims, one to the towing cable and one to the add-on.

IMHO, the best claims for mechanical inventions have a mixture of structural elements and functional language. Too much structure makes it easier to design around. Too little structure and you run into problems with intended use, prior art from unrelated fields, means-plus-function treatment, and sometimes even enablement problems.

 20 
 on: Today at 11:06 am 
Started by PaulWeathers - Last post by bluerogue
1. "A car having one or several doors characterized in thar each door is coated with an optional first layer of lacquer, several further layers of lacquer and a last layer of lacquer,
wherein said first layer comprises titanium oxide with a particle size of less than a first particle size,

If the first layer is optional, then I'm not finding it.  Further, the language is still very confusing as you say the first layer is optional, but still have many other layers.  That will trigger a 112 from me as any layer could be a first layer, e.g. second, third, fourth layer could be interpreted as a first layer. So the second layer could be the first layer? Because the language is so broad, this becomes very unclear and will trigger a 112 from me.  It may not from other examiners.

and wherein each of said further layers comprise titanium oxide with a particle size of more than a certain minimum particle size but with a particle size of less than a certain maximum particle size,
and wherein said last layer comprises titanium oxide with a particle size of more than a last particle size,

This doesn't limit at all. I can choose the min size to be 0 and max to be infinity

and wherein said first, minimum, maximum and last particle sizes are between 400nm and 1400nm,

This helps the above comment, but only limits the size to 400-1400nm.  The problem is that more than a last particle size could raise issues of more than 1400nm? Is that what you're claiming? I would have a little trouble parsing this claim.

and wherein the certain maximum particle size of each of said further layers is between the certain minimum and the certain maximum particle size of the underlying layer, or, if the underlying layer is the first layer, is below the first particle size.

This again doesn't limit to much of anything.  See the comment above about minimum and maximum.
You'd be better off saying that each layer has particle sizes between 400-1400.  If you mean something else, I have no idea what you mean here.


2. The car of claim 1 characterized in that the first layer is not optional.
3. The car of claim 1 characterized in that the first layer is not present.

These would likely get 112s as contradictory to claim 1.  You claim layer 1 is optional.  Claiming that it is not optional is akin to claiming A and not A.  That is indefinite.  Claim 3 is not further limiting because if it's not there, then I don't have to find it.  Also, see the comment above with regard to "optional" language.

I don't think this amendment will help your cause any and will probably cement in the examiner's mind that you have no idea what you're doing. 
Note that some examiners will help pro se applicants more and others will not so I don't know if having the perception of not sure what you're doing will help or hurt you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 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 0.126 seconds with 18 queries.