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 7 8 9 10
 on: 01-14-17 at 04:55 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi ProSeGuy,
I am not a lawyer, but an independent inventor as you are.

I support you idea that prior art never teaches how to make butter topping in the first place. I think that your interview with the examiner is a good idea. What reasoning is persuasive? At least I believe your reasoning is persuasive enough! And I support your invention!


 on: 01-14-17 at 11:40 am 
Started by projecttoday - Last post by smgsmc
That's what I've found.  It is possible that my simple program uses a technique that is patented.  So there is some chance.  But the holders of these patents would find more fertile ground for attack in the many other larger, profitable applications on the market than my startup. 

As for my original question, I was thinking that one thing I didn't want to do is something really obvious.  As an example, say I wanted to put an accounting program of my own on the market.  Is there a patent on accounting programs held by QuickBooks or Peachtree or somebody and I would have to make a contract with them if I wanted to market my own, something which they probably wouldn't do.  Yes, these programs have been around for more than 20 years but I don't know for a fact they didn't get around to getting a patent in, say, 1999.  I just wanted to know if applications are patented.  It looks like they are not.

I sense some underlying confusion here.  In the US, you don't patent computer programs or computer software per se.  You patent methods, often including specific algorithms, executed by a computer.  (All muddled by Alice, as you previously noted.)

 on: 01-14-17 at 11:08 am 
Started by cheesepep - Last post by cheesepep
Some company filed an application having 4 inventors: A, B, C, and D in the WIPO.

For some reason, D is wrong and should be E. The company filed filed a record of change for the inventorship, but it seems that the records have not been updated.

Now, the company wants to file a US National Stage application claiming priority. Should the inventorship be listed as A, B, C, E? Any special forms to provide? TIA.

 on: 01-14-17 at 11:00 am 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
After my reviewing all options, I found After Final Consideration Pilot is the most proper way for me to handle the Final Office Action.

Any comment?


 on: 01-14-17 at 10:35 am 
Started by Jackoose - Last post by patentbro
I had never looked at the MPEP

Yikes... Now, reading the MPEP like you're doing now is good but what you should really do is get in the habit of looking the mpep during your practice sessions.

Use the MPEP TOC or even your PLI notes to identify the relevant MPEP chapter, then read through that chapter's TOC to zero in on the specific section or subsection you need.

 on: 01-14-17 at 09:13 am 
Started by dab2d - Last post by smgsmc
(a) When an apparatus is capable of performing a function, it doesn’t necessarily mean (and typically doesn't mean) that the apparatus autonomously performs the function [unless you define it to be such], it typically means that the apparatus is capable of performing the function in response to the action of an agent.  The agent can be a user (typically a person, but could be an animal such as a dog), but doesn’t have to be.

(b) Consider a container with a removable lid.  The container doesn’t autonomously remove its own lid; a person can remove the lid.  Similarly, consider a chair with a foldable back and foldable legs.  The chair doesn’t autonomously fold its back and legs; a person can fold the back and legs.

(c) Now consider your instance of a door.  First assume a door mounted to a frame with simple hinges.   The door is capable of movement when sufficient torque is applied to it.  The sufficient torque could be applied intentionally by a person or an animal; or, it could be applied unintentionally by a gust of wind or or unintentionally by a runaway shopping cart or unintentionally by shock and vibration from passing traffic (especially if the hinges are not spring loaded).

The next step is to add a latch operated by a door knob.  The door is capable of movement if the door knob is intentionally turned and sufficient torque is applied to the door.  This prevents the door from being opened by most animals and unintentional agents.

The next step is to add a lock.  The door is capable of movement if the door is unlocked by a user with a key.  This prevents the door from being opened by unauthorized users.

The next step is to seal the door permanently.  For example, if we have a wooden door and a wooden frame, we can epoxy the door to the frame.  If we have a steel door and a steel frame, we can weld the door shut.  The door now cannot be opened without some destructive action:  kick the door down, bash the door open, cut the door open, blow it up ....

(d) So the spec needs to spell out what enables the function to be performed.  I don’t remember the cite, but there is case law that states that the function must be able to be performed without destroying the apparatus [unless that is the design intent].  I believe the claim under consideration was directed to an apparatus with detachable components.  The Examiner cited prior art with fixed components, but stated that the components could be detached with a saw.  The Examiner was wisely overturned. 

(e) But the limits of “detachable” need to be clear.  Consider two components nailed together.  Are they detachable because you can remove the nails?  Is that a destructive act?  How does that differ from two components screwed together, if I remove the screws?  What if the claim specifies that the components are detachable without tools?  Well, what if the prior art discloses two components screwed together, and thumbscrews (which do not require tools) are well known?

(f) So, back to your hypo.  You do need to distinguish your sealing element from the prior-art lock and clarify what you mean by “the door is incapable of movement relative to the door frame”.  It is reasonable to say that the lock does render the door incapable of movement relative to the door frame when the door is in the locked state, if you exclude destructive actions such as bashing the door down.  Does your sealing element permit only a single state [sealed only], as opposed to two states [locked, unlocked]?  How does your sealing element differ from nailing, screwing, bolting, gluing, or welding the door shut?

 on: 01-14-17 at 07:55 am 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by fb
Showing that prior art cannot actually be combined the way an examiner stated it could be, removes prima fascia obviousness, correct?

 on: 01-14-17 at 07:32 am 
Started by fb - Last post by fb
If inventor filed Invention #1 more than a year ago but it has not published, and now has Invention #2 which is patentably distinct but somewhat obvious over #1, can #2 be filed by itself without needing to do a CIP ?

 on: 01-14-17 at 05:26 am 
Started by Jackoose - Last post by Jackoose
Do you have any ideas as to what way you think would be best to do this? 

What if we start on a MPEP chapter then pick out x hours worth of reading, read it on our own right before we conference, then during the conference we go through it together and teach it to each other?

Ive been reading the MPEP chapters lately.    I did this for 700 and 2100 so far.  Today I went in for the review of my missed questions from the first test.   Anything having to do with 700 or 2100 in these question I got right this I would like to continue with the reading of the actual MPEP (its all I really have anyways, as my PLI materials are an outdated hand-me down).

 on: 01-14-17 at 05:05 am 
Started by pygsys - Last post by Jackoose
congrats patentbro.

I went in for my review of my first failed attempt today.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10


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

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 18 queries.