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: 11-21-17 at 09:15 pm 
Started by radjo - Last post by fewyearsin
102(a)(1) states that a reference published or publicly available before the effective filing date may be prior art.

So initially, yes, your hypothetical reference B would qualify under 102(a)(1).

Then, the exception, 102(b)(1)(A) states that it would NOT be prior art if reference B was made public less than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of your application, AND was by the same inventor as application A (there are some nuances here, but if it is the same inventive entity, it is simple).

So to answer your question, no, reference B would not be prior art, because yes, the exception applies.


Your concern with the effective filing date is related to 102(a)(2).  Under that analysis . . .
reference B is prior art because it was effectively filed 16 months before your application A.
exception 102(b)(2)(A) applies because it is the same inventor.  Note that there is no time limit on 102(b)(2) exceptions.
exception 102(b)(2)(C) probably also applies if the inventor has assigned both applications to their same employer.


Hope that helps.  As always, double check and don't rely on anything I've said as legal advice.  Every situation is different, and there may be nuances that affect the applicability of the law to your set of facts.

 32 
 on: 11-21-17 at 08:35 pm 
Started by radjo - Last post by radjo
If a patent application (Let's say A) was filed today (11/2017) and another one (Let's say B) filed by the same inventor got published 11 months back (12/2016) but was actually filed 16 months back (06/2016) then can we use the 102(b)(1)(A)  exception to discard B as prior art for A? In other words, to use this exception, the 1 year grace period of A should cover the filing date or publication date of B?

 33 
 on: 11-21-17 at 08:32 pm 
Started by Seva - Last post by artchain
Interesting question.

Copyright law in the United States protects original works of authorship.  However, your intent is to produce a literal and exact transcription of the speaker's words.  While this involves a great deal of work on your part, I don't believe it is an original work.

Therefore, in my opinion, the book would not qualify for copyright protection.

See Walter v. Lane, App.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sC0tAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA761&lpg=PA761&dq=transcribe+a+speech+copyright&source=bl&ots=t6W-zHtpt2&sig=0ZOxAQcOEbmhR0nAfg_JJHjDTW8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA7vbL69DXAhUEjFQKHb9bDL8Q6AEIcTAH#v=onepage&q=transcribe%20a%20speech%20copyright&f=false


 34 
 on: 11-21-17 at 08:18 pm 
Started by attroll - Last post by artchain
The new, updated edition is a derivative work, based on the original work.  As such, it is protected by its own copyright.

However, the copyright of the original work still applies to the derivative work.  So you actually have two copyrights.

I've usually seen it written like this:

“Copyright 2017, 2018 My Name. All rights reserved.”

 35 
 on: 11-21-17 at 07:48 pm 
Started by Seva - Last post by Seva
I have transcribed the public domain recordings of the speeches of a famous speaker in India. The speeches have been transcribed and published previously by an earlier team, but as the recordings are of poor sound quality, the team could not catch many words as a result of which the collected transcriptions they published were of poor quality-- missing many words and containing many erroneous words. That book was copyright registered. I have now listened to the recordings myself and transcribed the collected speeches again. The transcriptions I have done, although of the same speeches, are quite different from the earlier book as I have been able to catch the many words missing from the earlier publication, and also I have caught the correct word in most all the places where the original team had transcribed wrong terms. I am not writing any commentary. All the words of the text I will publish are the words of the speaker himself. But as the sound recordings were very poor, it was a huge job to transcribe the speeches correctly and accurately, including all the words. This required listening to each speech around 20 times in order to gradually make out all the words.

My questions:
1. The speaker, who has since deceased, is obviously the author of the spoken speeches. Who is the author of the book? The words printed are not my words, as I have simply transcribed what he spoke. But it has taken tremendous work on my part to transcribe the speeches. Does this make me the author of the current book? Or would I be called instead the editor? The US Copyright Office eCO standard application asks who the author is.

2. I am filing the application for the copyright registration. Does that make me the claimant?

 36 
 on: 11-21-17 at 07:14 pm 
Started by attroll - Last post by attroll
I have a question about publishing and copyrights dates.
I published a book last year. The book is a guidebook for hiking a specific trail.
Each year the guidebook gets republished as a new book because there are many changes to the hiking trail that are different from the year before.
I will be publishing the book again this year.
Last year on the inside I put the following statement.
“Copyright 2017 My Name. All rights reserved.”
When I reprint the book again this year, what date do I use? Do I keep the same date of 2017 or should it be 2018?

 37 
 on: 11-21-17 at 06:58 pm 
Started by mbison - Last post by mbison
There's a "device," which is a "mechanical device." (Meaning no electronics? No electronics that you care about?)

            No electronics in this case

There's a controller, probably also a device but not "the device". 
           
            Right, a computer basically

There's a robot which includes "the device" and "the controller." (For this reason, I'd usually think of the robot as a "system" but you could also make the argument that it's a third device.)

            Agreed, a system seems most appropriate

The method you're interested in protecting is a controller method. (Even though, arguably, all three things perform methods.)

            Basically, yes.  Control functions that involve using the device.

What's the relationship between A/B/C/D and "the device"? Do these functions operate, or operate on, "the device?" Do these functions manipulate/move the device? Do these functions cause the device to do other things?
[/quote]

            They cause the robot to move the device to do certain things. 

 38 
 on: 11-21-17 at 05:41 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by lazyexaminer
Thanks both.  As to lazy's comment about enablement, it's not enabled for anything so far as I can tell.  How do you reduce adherence? Welp, you just design the stent to have reduced adherence.  The whole spec is just a bunch of hand-waving. 

But I thought of it more because of the "single step" thing you were talking about.  In a "method for making" claim, the sole step is... to design the thing.  Also, at what step in the claim do you actually make the thing?  You don't.  The "making" never happens.  Just the one step of designing it.

To mersenne's final question: nope.  First action allowance by a primary who's been there churning out first action allowances on junk for waaaaaay too long.

Yeah I basically just lumped the method and device claim together but you're right--design isn't making. Are we just claiming human thought and intent? If I think of a way to reduce adhesion did I just "design" and thus infringe? So add 101 problems too, to the method at least...

Yuck, back to examining some device claims with clear structural limitations...

 39 
 on: 11-21-17 at 05:38 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by steelie
I don't know about the rest of the people on this board, but I plan to do much more with my retirement than sit in a recliner watching shows, surfing the net, and playing video games.
I'm very introverted.

 40 
 on: 11-21-17 at 05:17 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Thanks both.  As to lazy's comment about enablement, it's not enabled for anything so far as I can tell.  How do you reduce adherence? Welp, you just design the stent to have reduced adherence.  The whole spec is just a bunch of hand-waving. 

But I thought of it more because of the "single step" thing you were talking about.  In a "method for making" claim, the sole step is... to design the thing.  Also, at what step in the claim do you actually make the thing?  You don't.  The "making" never happens.  Just the one step of designing it.

To mersenne's final question: nope.  First action allowance by a primary who's been there churning out first action allowances on junk for waaaaaay too long.

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 0.132 seconds with 18 queries.