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
 51 
 on: 11-21-17 at 03:16 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by Robert K S
It is common that dependent claims might only further define the composition or structure of elements recited in the independent claim, without introducing any additional steps.

I've never seen an objection to this.

I had to take this issue to the PTAB.  The examiner's position was that a dependent claim adding a structural limitation to a method claim triggered a 112 fourth rejection as not properly limiting the method with a method step.  I cannot believe I actually had to appeal that.  Except that I can, because some examiners try to get away with all manner of impropriety if you let them.

 52 
 on: 11-21-17 at 02:56 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by fewyearsin
My take is that examining is the premier job; it's like early retirement.

You can work in a recliner where you can stretch your legs out and lean back. I push my recliner underneath my work table.

Amazon streaming, XFINITY streaming is pretty much constantly on.

Occasionally visit chess.com, and play a game of chess.

Occasionally play PS4 games like Dark Souls, or Call of Duty that allow for quick multi-player matches to interrupt the monotonous paperwork.

Back to movies/tv series ... and monotonous paperwork.

Take the dog for a walk.

Play some online blackjack, at a virtual casino site, then back to the paperwork.

Occasionally visit philosophy/science forums and participate in debate.

Sometimes I will work 24 hours straight, and watch several seasons of a series.

Right now, the new rental, "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is going to help me do a few hours of work.

It's the mindless nature of the job that makes it great!  ;)

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.

 53 
 on: 11-21-17 at 02:40 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by openpatent
My take is that examining is the premier job; it's like early retirement.

You can work in a recliner where you can stretch your legs out and lean back. I push my recliner underneath my work table.

Amazon streaming, XFINITY streaming is pretty much constantly on.

Occasionally visit chess.com, and play a game of chess.

Occasionally play PS4 games like Dark Souls, or Call of Duty that allow for quick multi-player matches to interrupt the monotonous paperwork.

Back to movies/tv series ... and monotonous paperwork.

Take the dog for a walk.

Play some online blackjack, at a virtual casino site, then back to the paperwork.

Occasionally visit philosophy/science forums and participate in debate.

Sometimes I will work 24 hours straight, and watch several seasons of a series.

Right now, the new rental, "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is going to help me do a few hours of work.

It's the mindless nature of the job that makes it great!  ;)


Try that with the new Rsp monitoring 😇

 54 
 on: 11-21-17 at 02:31 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by steelie
My take is that examining is the premier job; it's like early retirement.

You can work in a recliner where you can stretch your legs out and lean back. I push my recliner underneath my work table.

Amazon streaming, XFINITY streaming is pretty much constantly on.

Occasionally visit chess.com, and play a game of chess.

Occasionally play PS4 games like Dark Souls, or Call of Duty that allow for quick multi-player matches to interrupt the monotonous paperwork.

Back to movies/tv series ... and monotonous paperwork.

Take the dog for a walk.

Play some online blackjack, at a virtual casino site, then back to the paperwork.

Occasionally visit philosophy/science forums and participate in debate.

Sometimes I will work 24 hours straight, and watch several seasons of a series.

Right now, the new rental, "The Hitman's Bodyguard" is going to help me do a few hours of work.

It's the mindless nature of the job that makes it great!  ;)

 55 
 on: 11-21-17 at 02:09 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by mersenne
I agree with Tobmapsatonmi: if the independent claim is OK, then a dependent with no additional steps is probably OK.

FWIW, I was taught to always include at least two steps in a method (and also to not call them steps, but rather operations or something else).

 56 
 on: 11-21-17 at 01:35 pm 
Started by Shiryuu - Last post by artchain
I cannot give you specific legal advice.  If you are serious about pursuing this, you should consult an attorney.

This is a complicated issue, and there are gray areas.

You should bear in mind that if your book has the appearance of infringing, you can still be sued.  And defending yourself against a copyright infringement lawsuit can be VERY expensive.

Also bear in mind that publishers tend to be risk-averse, so if your book falls in a gray area, you will have trouble finding a publisher.


 57 
 on: 11-21-17 at 01:27 pm 
Started by Pippa80 - Last post by Pippa80
Hi,

I'm having some trouble finding out the copyright status of one of Robert E. Howard's stories: "Pigeons from Hell". On Wikisource it's listed as "Copyrighted in the United States until 2034 due to Renewal R369102", while underneath there's a link to Bibliowiki stating that "The copyright has expired because the registration was filed by an incorrect entity and thus invalidated".

I see that the story is listed under several public domain websites, and have been released as e-books on Amazon, Google Books, Barnes & Noble etc. with the notice "The copyright has expired because the registration was filed by an incorrect entity and thus invalidated."

So, I'm confused..is it public domain, or was the copyright renewed until 2034? Does anyone know where I might be able to find some accurate info about its copyright status?

 58 
 on: 11-21-17 at 01:02 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by ThomasPaine
"The situation you are describing is similar to the way it was in the mid to late nineties, when you would send a case to the board with perfect art, and the judges would tell you to allow it."

The Board does not tell examiners to allow a case.  The Board decides if the rejections meet the legal requirements.  You should know that. If you don't/didn't, now you do.

"I saw some attorneys take advantage of this by listing perfect or near perfect art on their IDS, and then appeal your rejection no matter how good it was, knowing they had a very high probability of winning."

Not sure how this is "taking advantage."  Applicants do try to submit what they regard as the closest prior art that they are aware of.  If they are aware of the closest prior art and write their claims to define over it, they expect them to be allowed.  And of course, they write them to be "as close to the line" of patentability as they can.  That's what patent practitioners get paid to do. 

Practitioners assess the chances on appeal based on the merits of each case.  The Board has had an "affirm at all costs" mentality for as long as I can remember.  And I was an examiner for 9+ years and have been practicing for 18+ years.  That was true when the Board was essentially 100% lifers, and it remains true even with all the outside hiring the Board has done in the past 6-7 years.  All competent practitioners take that into account when deciding whether to appeal and whether the appeal will be successful.

My experience is that examiners don't understand why they get reversed because 1) they don't understand the law, 2) don't want to understand the law, and 3) don't learn from the reversals.  I get examiners reversed, or force them to re-open, repeatedly and the next case of mine that ends up on their docket has the exact same garbage rejections (e.g. "design choice," "inherency," boilerplate case law, etc.) made.  Why?  Because it's easier to issue garbage rejections, get the counts, hope for tickets on the RCE gravy train, and get promotions and bonuses than it is to do the job correctly.  That's not the examiners' fault.  They are rational actors.  Their PAP does not provide any incentive to do the job correctly. So they don't.

 59 
 on: 11-21-17 at 12:35 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
It is common that dependent claims might only further define the composition or structure of elements recited in the independent claim, without introducing any additional steps.

I've never seen an objection to this.

 60 
 on: 11-21-17 at 12:30 pm 
Started by RolandS - Last post by still_learnin
Also with the BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS, do I have to address every figure from scratch or can I write that figure 2 depicts  the same as with figure 1 except ...

Standard practice for "Brief Description [of the Drawings]" is to give only a high-level description of the invention ("Figure 1 shows a widget; Figure 2 shows a widget"). No need to explain how drawings differ from one another.

That's for this particular section of the patent specification. Once you're in the Detailed Description of the Invention and you're actually discussing the drawings, it's fairly common to say "Figure 1 shows one embodiment of a widget that includes a circular insert. ... Figure 2 shows another embodiment of a widget that includes a rectangular insert." I'd phrase it something like that, rather than saying "Figure 2 is like 1 except for these differences."

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 0.101 seconds with 18 queries.