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 8 ... 10
 21 
 on: Yesterday at 12:45 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by bluerogue
1) A device comprising
   at least one processor;
    a first unit implemented by at least one a said processor; and
   a second unit implemented by at least one a said processor.

2) A device according to claim 1, further comprising
    a third unit implemented by at least one a said processor; and
   a fourth unit implemented by at least one a said processor.

I'm not sure I'd be ok with this version.  If you replace the said with the, then the claim reads "a the processor" and that just makes no sense.

 22 
 on: Yesterday at 12:33 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by dbmax
DB: Your claim looks fine to me. 

bluerogue: Thanks. BTW, it's also not clear to me  from the OP whether the spec or original claims could be read to allow any single unit to be implemented by multiple processors. If not, I'm guessing the claims of my prior post would look like this:

1) A device comprising
   at least one processor;
    a first unit implemented by at least one a said processor; and
   a second unit implemented by at least one a said processor.

2) A device according to claim 1, further comprising
    a third unit implemented by at least one a said processor; and
   a fourth unit implemented by at least one a said processor.

 23 
 on: Yesterday at 11:55 am 
Started by novobarro - Last post by lazyexaminer
Ok bluerogue, you are right OP later said it doesn't matter same or different but never actually said that's in the spec, so the situation I had in my head was more than we were given. I can see an applicant not caring either way and also not saying anything about it in the spec. Like you, I'd also want the spec to be pretty clear that they could be the same if I was going to interpret the way that I said, without that I would assume first and second mean something different in the claims since they are being called out separately. I would probably not like an amendment trying to call them the same (if it was in an original claim maybe different story). So I think we are in agreement...

 24 
 on: Yesterday at 11:43 am 
Started by mattthew - Last post by still_learnin
I have a case where a patent search was done with the written disclaimer to the client that it would only include a search of relevant published patents and applications.  The patent search was optional but the client opted to spend the $1500 to be sure.

Now after over a year and 20k in legal fees preparing the patent the client finds a published patent application that anticipates the patent.  The category the application is in is certainly relevant to the search that was done (the client stumbled on it simply searching in the right category with a keyword relevant to the invention). 
...
Was the patent search outsourced to a search firm/searcher, or was it done by the lawyer/law firm?

 25 
 on: Yesterday at 11:38 am 
Started by novobarro - Last post by bluerogue
DB: Your claim looks fine to me.

Lazyexaminer: I'd say your scenario is a bit of a counterfactual that assumes facts not in evidence based on the OP.  There is no indication there was some sort of explicit statement in the spec that the 1st and 2nd widget could be the same.  I'd also want a fairly explicit statement to that effect in the spec.  The traditional boilerplate of variations, etc. are contemplated would not be enough for me.  Under your facts, I'd probably do exactly as you would, reject with a single widget and have applicant come back and explain what they mean.  Further, assuming they had a dependent that said the 1st and 2nd widgets were the same, I'd respond that their dependent claim indicates my mapping is correct.  So, yes, under your facts, I would agree with you.

 26 
 on: Yesterday at 11:31 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by snapshot
Talk about missing the point of my comment.  Wow.
Which was what, exactly?  Gratuitous slur that is demonstrably opposite the reality of the situation, followed by "assume we'll be closed"?

Bzzt.  Still wrong.  Let me spell it out for you.

The current administration is NOT the Democrats in Congress.  The current administration is the Trump administration.  You know, the ones who run the executive branch, of which the USPTO is part.

Because the administration is the one who gives the USPTO authorization to use its reserve funds to stay open during a shutdown (not the opposition party in Congress), I'm pointing to administration dysfunction (of which there is a lot) to say that it's safe to assume that the USPTO will close when the shutdown happens until we hear otherwise.  To wit, any communication I've received from my supervisor has been operating under the assumption that we will be closed.

During the 2013 shutdown, we knew WELL in advance we were staying open, and how long we could stay open for, because the Obama administration was competent and the people in charge told us early.  With about 14 hours left to go before the looming shut down, we still do not know if we can stay open or not. 

To misinterpret my original comment to place the blame on USPTO not knowing its operating status on Democrats in Congress is patently absurd.

 27 
 on: Yesterday at 11:16 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by MYK
Talk about missing the point of my comment.  Wow.
Which was what, exactly?  Gratuitous slur that is demonstrably opposite the reality of the situation, followed by "assume we'll be closed"?

Seriously, someone seems a little defensive.
Feels mighty gaslighty around here.

 28 
 on: Yesterday at 10:59 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by lazyexaminer
Talk about missing the point of my comment.  Wow.

Seriously, someone seems a little defensive.

 29 
 on: Yesterday at 10:30 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by snapshot
Given the general dysfunction of the current administration, assume the PTO will be closed if the government shuts down until you hear otherwise.
You mean, the Democrats shutting everything down because they want to open the floodgates for illegal immigrants is the fault of "the current administration"?

I mean, it would at least be something if they'd quit lying about what the President says -- Schumer and Pelosi announcing that President Trump had caved on DACA in a private meeting when he hadn't done any such thing, Dick Durbin saying Trump had called various countries "shitholes" when everyone else who was actually at the meeting denies that he said any such thing. . . .  But I guess that when the only people who will vote for your party are the illegal immigrants who are lying on their Clinton Motor-Voter forms. . . .

Talk about missing the point of my comment.  Wow.

 30 
 on: Yesterday at 09:50 am 
Started by novobarro - Last post by lazyexaminer
Call them first and second processors and later include, perhaps even in a dependent claim, wherein the first and second processors are the same processor.
Agree, this is a good way to go.

Disagree. If you recited a 1st and 2nd widget, and the examiner found 1 widget and mapped them to both the 1st and 2nd widget, you would object strenuously and correctly to the fact that the examiner did not find two widgets as recited. In fact, there is case law that says the mapping is improper as you cannot double map an element to two different things in a claim. Therefore, the claim has two widgets.  To go back and claim that those two widgets are the same widget would be doing exactly what you would tell the examiner he can't do.

As with everything prosecution, it depends on context.

Obviously you cannot map a single element to two different elements. If the spec supports that 1st and 2nd widget might be different or everything might be done by the same widget, and the claim just says 1st and 2nd widget, then I would have no problem saying the BRI, in light of the spec, is that they may be the same or different. If he complains that I map the same thing to both I will point to the spec saying that those widgets may be the same, so tough, if you want them to be different say so in the claim. If a dependent claim clarified that the 1st and 2nd widget are the same (or even clarified that they are different, implying that they could be the same in the independent) then that is even stronger evidence of what he is trying to do.

So I guess you would call my suggestion indefinite? Isn't it perfectly clear what it is trying to do, in light of the spec? I cannot justify a 112 rejection here, though I would probably explicitly state an interpretation on the record in such a case to help the public see what I was thinking while examining it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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 0.216 seconds with 18 queries.