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
 41 
 on: Yesterday at 09:11 am 
Started by domdia - Last post by domdia
Hello everyone!

Would be grateful if you could advise, or point in the right direction, regarding the following question:

Would a new jewellery brand be allowed to mention in their marketing and promotional materials that their designer used to work for a well-know brand which holds trademarks in the respective product groups (Swarovski could be a good example)?

Thank you for your help!

Dom

 42 
 on: Yesterday at 07:43 am 
Started by Raja - Last post by Raja
Hello All,
I got an offer as 'trainee European patent attorney' (EPA) in a medium sized pvt. firm in Germany. Although the salary is low (around gross 3100 euro per month), I decided to go for it. I am curious to know the future of my job (I am actually new to IP jobs) after becoming EPA. Especially how much the salary will I receive after acquiring EPA? During my interview they informed me that there will be incentives/bonus during the trainee period, but how much I can expect?
Thanks for your reply, Raj.

 43 
 on: 06-20-17 at 11:17 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by smgsmc
What if the claims were similar to the following:

An apparatus comprising:

element A for receiving W, wherein the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z; and
element B, wherein element B determines X, Y, and Z.

I'm thinking there is no contradiction here because the claim is just specifying which element of the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z.

That is, there is no confusion of whether the apparatus or the element determines, X, Y, and Z, the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z, and specifically, element B of the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z.

That's an awfully muddled claim construction.  The "wherein the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z" clause is superfluous with respect to element A.

 44 
 on: 06-20-17 at 11:06 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by midpatent
What if the claims were similar to the following:

An apparatus comprising:

element A for receiving W, wherein the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z; and
element B, wherein element B determines X, Y, and Z.

I'm thinking there is no contradiction here because the claim is just specifying which element of the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z.

That is, there is no confusion of whether the apparatus or the element determines, X, Y, and Z, the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z, and specifically, element B of the apparatus determines X, Y, and Z.

 45 
 on: 06-20-17 at 11:01 pm 
Started by ma07 - Last post by ma07
I agree that 5.5(d)(1) seems to apply to in-house counsel.

When I first started, I was drafting patent applications and responding to Office Actions.  Both involved substantive legal work. I think it would be hard to say that I was not practicing law at the time.

 46 
 on: 06-20-17 at 10:02 pm 
Started by samar - Last post by samar
Hello dears,
I have non-prov pending and I am contacting companies.
1-  Please advice me where I can download a good NDA?
2- If the potential investor is in another country, how can I know that the NDA is signed by the authorized person?
3- I am contacting companies in Europe and USA, because of language, do you have another opinion?
Thanks

 47 
 on: 06-20-17 at 09:47 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by smgsmc
1'.  An apparatus for setting an area, the apparatus comprising:

Unfortunately, that's an easy Final OA for the examiner, and no progress for the applicant.  But if you're going to make other substantive amendments anyway, that's how I'd try to fix the 112.
Possibly.  That's why I'd talk to the Examiner first.  But ultimately if I had to choose between a Final OA (if the Examiner claims a new search was needed based on the amendment to the preamble ... I assume that's what you're getting at) vs appealing the 112, I'd go with the Final OA.

 48 
 on: 06-20-17 at 08:15 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by mersenne
1'.  An apparatus for setting an area, the apparatus comprising:

Unfortunately, that's an easy Final OA for the examiner, and no progress for the applicant.  But if you're going to make other substantive amendments anyway, that's how I'd try to fix the 112.

 49 
 on: 06-20-17 at 08:01 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by smgsmc
I agree with you that this should be fine. Things are often claimed this way. Not sure what else to say without knowing what the examiner was thinking. Maybe a phone call can clarify or give you a benign way to change it to be satisfactory?
Agree.  Should be OK, and a call to the Examiner is the way to proceed.  But, if he should dig in his heels, and you want to avoid an appeal, then just modify the preamble from something like

1.  An apparatus for setting an area, the apparatus comprising:

to something like

1'.  An apparatus for setting an area, the apparatus comprising:

 50 
 on: 06-20-17 at 04:11 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by lazyexaminer
I agree with you that this should be fine. Things are often claimed this way. Not sure what else to say without knowing what the examiner was thinking. Maybe a phone call can clarify or give you a benign way to change it to be satisfactory?

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 7.102 seconds with 18 queries.