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 9 10
 31 
 on: 03-27-17 at 05:07 pm 
Started by lboceanguy - Last post by artchain
YouTube videos are creative works that are protected by copyright. 

Your use of these videos for instructional purposes may qualify as fair use, but it's often not black or white.  The US Copyright Office describes the factors that come into play when considering a fair use argument:

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html


There is another issue here that you have not mentioned.  When you use YouTube, you agree to their Terms of Service.  The Terms say, in part, "You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. ...  You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. "


 32 
 on: 03-27-17 at 04:55 pm 
Started by EDCGadgetGeek - Last post by EDCGadgetGeek
Has anyone been in the following situation?  Any advice would be most appreciated.

A colleague of mine recently had an oral argument at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and unfortunately, it was decided against us.  However, not all of the issues in the prosecution history were addressed.  Prior to the federal court route, at the PTAB level, new grounds of rejection were raised, and my colleague had filed a reply brief addressing the new grounds, but never received a response from the PTAB.  These new grounds were never addressed at the federal court level.  Is it possible to take another bite of the apple, or is the federal decision dispositive as to all issues?

 33 
 on: 03-27-17 at 03:16 pm 
Started by lboceanguy - Last post by lboceanguy
Hi, is it fair use if I photocopy some pages of a book for class handout when teaching? Thank you. - Alan

 34 
 on: 03-27-17 at 02:38 pm 
Started by Tabo - Last post by Rabid Levity
Bingo.

 35 
 on: 03-27-17 at 02:34 pm 
Started by tuka - Last post by Rabid Levity
A competent practitioner should want to see a copy of the official filing receipt to make sure the PTO correctly recorded dates/inventors/other.

There used to be a lot of errors in the filing receipts made by the PTO.  Much less so nowadays (now more errors by applicant in messing up or not understanding all the formfields in the ADS form).

 36 
 on: 03-27-17 at 01:34 pm 
Started by tuka - Last post by tuka
I found it is very strange from him to ask for a copy of the official mail from USPTO, while all the info. in the electronic receipt with him and we are near to fill the nonprovisional and I sent to him some new embodiments not in the provisional.
I am out of USA and this is the first time I deal with a patent attorney from USA by email.

 37 
 on: 03-27-17 at 01:10 pm 
Started by shivaprem - Last post by ThomasPaine
"When referring to my claims (in arguments) I often say 'the claimed subject matter', rather than 'the claimed invention'."

You're doing it wrong.

 38 
 on: 03-27-17 at 01:05 pm 
Started by shivaprem - Last post by ThomasPaine
The invention is whatever is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed.  Thus, nothing in the detailed description is "the invention."  So stop using "the invention" in the detailed description.  Stop using it anywhere.

"An in-house guy for a client handles a lot of the European prosecution work.  He prefers example, and to avoid embodiment.  If I remember his reasoning correctly, it is because EPO may interpret an embodiment as only including the elements associated with that embodiment and not another embodiment, which can make claim amendments difficult if the examiner says that there is no explicit connection between the two embodiments that would allow the elements from one to be incorporated into the other."

This is true.  And good advice.  In the EPO, if your application discloses, "Fig. 1 shows an embodiment comprising ABCD.  Fig. 2 Shows an embodiment comprising ABCDEF." and you claim "An apparatus comprising ABCD" and the prior art shows an apparatus comprising ABCD and you think all you have to do is add E to the claim to have ABCDE and overcome the rejection, the examiner can require you to also add F because the "embodiment" you disclosed is ABCDEF.  Not ABCDE.

There's no requirement to label anything in the detailed description as an "embodiment," and certainly no requirement to label it as an "embodiment" of "the invention."  Doing so can only bite you in the a$$.  It can't help you, and provides no benefit.  Plus, it's just more words to type.  And for the inventors, the examiner, the judge, and the jury to read.   "In an embodiment of the invention, Fig. 1 shows an apparatus comprising ABCD.  In another embodiment of the invention, Fig. 2 shows an apparatus comprising ABCDEF.  In yet another embodiment of the invention, Fig. 3 shows an apparatus..."

Stop typing so many useless words.  Sheesh.

Stop it.

 39 
 on: 03-27-17 at 12:59 pm 
Started by lboceanguy - Last post by lboceanguy
Hello,

Is it okay to show Youtube videos in class for my teaching business. Or are they copyrighted and not fair use for this purpose? Your answers would be a great help. Thanks.

Alan

 40 
 on: 03-27-17 at 11:50 am 
Started by Tabo - Last post by JV
Why wouldn't the previous declaration apply to the CIP?  The rules say you can you use the parent's declaration for the CIP.
You raise an interesting point.  Pre-AIA, the USPTO specifically excluded the use of a prior-filed declaration for CIP applications (see MPEP 602.05(b), Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012).  Post-AIA, MPEP 602.05(a) appears to allow for it, so long as the declaration is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63.  To my mind, that is an impossibility.  37 CFR 1.63(c) states that "[a] person may not execute an oath or declaration for an application unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application".  If you are adding new matter, and the inventor has not reviewed that new matter, then there is no compliance with 1.63.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 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 0.097 seconds with 18 queries.