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: 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?

 42 
 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. 

 43 
 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...

 44 
 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.

 45 
 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.

 46 
 on: 11-21-17 at 05:17 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by abc123
I liked to think examining is like the movie "the sting" except that instead of fooling card players or people at a race track, examiners fool as many attorneys as possible into thinking their case was allowable, then wham them with some more prior art to get as many RCE's as possible. Sort of like, to use your fish example, hanging as many fish on a line as possible, except the fish are sucker fish, and they don't taste very good.


 47 
 on: 11-21-17 at 05:04 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by lazyexaminer
Yes, I hate when you claim a result with no link to structure. It is hard to search for that but at the same time it is so broad. I worry about enablement of the full scope of the claim (does it cover anything that produces that result, even totally different designs than you've disclosed). I hope the spec is clear as to what "reduced" means--reduced from what? Does that make it indefinite? To what extent can I just argue that this result will be inherent in whatever stent I find? One stent surely has reduced adherence compared to another non-identical stent.

These are just things that popped into my head...none of these things are alone fatal, but there are a lot of questions. I wouldn't want to examine it, and as a patentee I wouldn't really want to assert it either.

 48 
 on: 11-21-17 at 04:49 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by mersenne
Claims like that make me embarrassed about my generally pro-patent outlook ("the system is valuable, the participants are generally intelligent and trying to make good decisions," etc.)

Those claims just state intentions or objectives, not how to achieve the objectives.  Is it a special material you use?  Or a special shape?  Then those should be in the claims.

Even if it's true that there is no prior art that suggests that tissue adherence to stents is a Bad Thing, I would have hoped that the examiner put up more of a fight.  (Please don't tell me these were allowed after appeal!)

 49 
 on: 11-21-17 at 04:41 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.
Doubt you could find another job for steelie where he could do that while working full time for six figures

But what happens when he is forced to find a job a real thinking job and finds he no longer can?

Lazy examiner, that is pretty funny. I know an examiner in a chemical art who makes that duck look sophisticated by comparison.

Steelie, the only movie I can think of that relates to examining is Metropolis, and that's because when I did it I felt like the guy in the movie in front of the giant wheel forming the circuit connections.
It would be a hard transition for sure.

I equate examining to the game "What remains of Edith Finch" ... where a character works at a fish cannery cutting off fish heads ...

the work is very monotonous .. fish comes in .. chop off head .. then another fish ... chop off head .... repeat ...

The character tries to make the job more exciting by mentally removing himself from the job, and simultaneously imagining that job is part of some overall greater adventure.

That's what I do.

here it is : https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15042182/what-remains-of-edith-finch-preview-interview

 50 
 on: 11-21-17 at 04:28 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by abc123
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.
Doubt you could find another job for steelie where he could do that while working full time for six figures

But what happens when he is forced to find a job where you actually have to think, and finds he no longer can?

Lazy examiner, that is pretty funny. I know an examiner in a chemical art who makes that duck look sophisticated by comparison.

Steelie, the only movie I can think of that relates to examining is Metropolis, and that's because when I did it I felt like the guy in the movie in front of the giant wheel forming the circuit connections.

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 0.177 seconds with 18 queries.