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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: 07-20-17 at 04:26 pm 
Started by TexasEE - Last post by Confused Engineer
I had a good experience with PRG, but this was quite a few years ago now.  It may be that they have fallen behind.  Do they still provide test practice software?  Did you make use of the software?  After I took their course, I still waited a year before taking the exam, and I spent about 3 months studying earnestly with the software just before the test.  I followed the advice I was given at the time, which was not to sit for the test until you can score 80-90% or better each time you take a simulated exam.  If you are doing well on their simulated tests and still not passing the real test, then there is something wrong with their materials.  If you didn't do the work of studying using practice tests (reading the MPEP or treatises or listening to lectures is not going to help you much), then no other prep course is going to benefit you.  PRG has the reputation of being the best one out there (or at least did back when I took it).  A lot of other patent bar prep courses have come and gone since then.

I think PLI is regarded as the best course now. Of course it's also the most expensive (I believe).

To the OP, I used PLI in 2013 and would recommend it if you're willing to pay the $$$. When I took it you could save a lot of money by using a school email address to purchase, if that applies to you.

 92 
 on: 07-20-17 at 04:10 pm 
Started by HBTinker - Last post by Rabid Levity
So it sounds as if you (HBTinker) thought up some interesting additional embodiments based on your original invention, and added them into the CIP.  But you only added them as 3 new, dependent claims.

One thing to try would be to redraft your claim set, adding the least limiting subject matter of your 3 new, dependent claims into independent claim 1.  Let us pretend this subject matter is in your claim 16.

From there you have other options.  Your other two additional embodiments (in claims 17, 18) can remain dependent on your newly amended claim 1 (assuming these embodiments are not contradictory to the new embodiment you just added to claim 1).

Or, since you are obliged 3 independent claims, you could also make up two further new independent claims using your independent claim 1 and adding in the subject matter of 17, 18 respectively into each of them, and flesh out dependent claims for important dependent embodiments from each of the 3 independents.  The drawback to doing this is the examiner might issue a 3-way restriction, and it is hard to know in advance whether this will happen.

I second the comment about getting a patent agent or patent lawyer involved at this point, assuming you have the wherewithal to do so.


(Edit - had not seen Mersenne's intervening comment when I posted.  Mine is largely redundant of his.)


 93 
 on: 07-20-17 at 04:07 pm 
Started by HBTinker - Last post by mersenne
I haven't run into this issue, but I'd be very wary of anything affecting the issued patent.  Since you don't have SDP rejections of the three new dependent claims, couldn't you respond by re-writing those claims in independent form, including all of the limitations of the (identical to the issued patent) parent claims?

I think the only benefit to trying to get everything into a single patent would be the reduction of maintenance fees -- you don't get extra patent term, since the parent application is the earliest filing date.'

[edit to add:]

Furthermore, shouldn't your original patent cover the three new embodiments of the new dependent claims?  Is the new material really that important?

 94 
 on: 07-20-17 at 02:47 pm 
Started by HBTinker - Last post by lazyexaminer
Second bluerogue's comment. You could resolve this by changing the scope of your claims, in basically any way. This may invite obviousness type DP but a terminal disclaimer can resolve that and it sounds like you don't mind doing that.

As to your later issue, you cannot "abandon" your issued patent at this point (but see the next paragraph). If you decline to pay the first maintenance fee, which I assume you mean by renewal fee, the patent will expire, but that will not occur for about 4 years. I am actually not 100% sure whether this would resolve your rejection, as I know double patenting can occur with an expired patent, not sure if maintenance fee expiration is different...but nonetheless the rejection would remain ok for around 4 years so you'd have to try to overcome it in the meantime--I don't think it would be responsive to the rejection to just say "I will let those claims lapse later."

I would guess, if you really want to get rid of the first patent without changing the current claims, that you could get around this by filing a statutory disclaimer as to your first patent's claims. Such disclaimed claims are generally treated as if they never existed so I would assume the rejection would then be inappropriate once the first claims are disclaimed. This is not really a typical situation IMO so you should wait for additional input and/or hire a lawyer, or at least see what the examiner says about that if you plan to interview.

 95 
 on: 07-20-17 at 02:38 pm 
Started by Rabid Levity - Last post by Rabid Levity
Hello All,

I am replying to a notification of defective appeal brief.  Specifically, the paralegal objected that my claim Summary needed additional mapping to the specification.

I assume that since this summary is not part of the application, I should not "mark" (underline) newly added matter that I am placing into the Summary.

Do you think this is correct?

Thank you.

 96 
 on: 07-20-17 at 02:07 pm 
Started by HBTinker - Last post by bluerogue
I was under the impression that if I wanted to include new subject matter, that I should file a CIP.  The claims are identical with the exception of 3 additional dependent claims, the Statutory DP objection is for my first 15 claims.  The rule says that the Statutory DP applies when the subject matter of one invention is identical to the other uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html.  So with the introduction of these new claims, the inventions are no longer identical, right?

The subject matter is identical in the first 15 claims.  That is why the statutory double patenting rejection is given.  Each claim can be thought of as its own individual invention.  Thus, the 3 additional dependent claims are not subject to statutory double patenting because they are not identical, but the first 15 claims are because they are identical to the issued claims according to you.  The rejection is correct.

 97 
 on: 07-20-17 at 01:29 pm 
Started by TexasEE - Last post by Robert K S
I had a good experience with PRG, but this was quite a few years ago now.  It may be that they have fallen behind.  Do they still provide test practice software?  Did you make use of the software?  After I took their course, I still waited a year before taking the exam, and I spent about 3 months studying earnestly with the software just before the test.  I followed the advice I was given at the time, which was not to sit for the test until you can score 80-90% or better each time you take a simulated exam.  If you are doing well on their simulated tests and still not passing the real test, then there is something wrong with their materials.  If you didn't do the work of studying using practice tests (reading the MPEP or treatises or listening to lectures is not going to help you much), then no other prep course is going to benefit you.  PRG has the reputation of being the best one out there (or at least did back when I took it).  A lot of other patent bar prep courses have come and gone since then.

 98 
 on: 07-20-17 at 01:27 pm 
Started by HBTinker - Last post by HBTinker
This a continuation of my post Amendments and CIP /ip_forum/index.php/topic,29504.msg135960.html#msg135960.  I issued my original patent, submitted my CIP application, and received a response from my Examiner.  I'm not worried about most of the objections, including the nonstatutory double patenting.  However, I was not expecting the Statutory Double Patenting objection, I did not happen across it in my research.  Apparently a Terminal Disclaimer does not obviate the Statutory DP, so I am unsure of how to respond.

I was under the impression that if I wanted to include new subject matter, that I should file a CIP.  The claims are identical with the exception of 3 additional dependent claims, the Statutory DP objection is for my first 15 claims.  The rule says that the Statutory DP applies when the subject matter of one invention is identical to the other uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html.  So with the introduction of these new claims, the inventions are no longer identical, right?

This post ip_forum/index.php?topic=21841.0 briefly mentions that the SDP could be obviated by abandoning either my patent or the application.  I had intended to abandon the original by not paying the renewal fee, but is a more actionable approach required?  How, when should I abandon it? Will this satisfy the SDP objection?

I haven't had my interview with my Examiner yet, I'll be ready to take your suggestions to her.

 99 
 on: 07-20-17 at 11:47 am 
Started by edusci - Last post by edusci
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen,

1st of all, please excuse my english. I'd appreciatte your opinion on the following matter:

I'm planning a non-profit educational book, which I will give to students. The subject will be audio-visual technology. I have these concerns:

Let's say that I found a pic of a famous actor on a set, there're cameramen and sound engineers around. Can I obscure his face and draw a circle around the devices that are relevant to the book? The same question about famous musicians in a studio setting or at a concert (e.g. focusing on an amp).


The face of the celebrity is irrelevant to me, I do not intend to gain money or fame from his photo. I need to show the readers the equipment that the artist used (as in "this movie or album was recorded in a such-and-such way"). Or let's say there's a famous DJ or a film editor on the photo, his face is not important, but the action he is performing ('scratching' a record, splicing a film).

Also, another problem. In the US you have the fair use doctrine, but other countries do not have it. What should be done in such cases?

I have some photos from european magazines or websites, but the copyright holder doesn't give me a permition for a free use. In this case, the photos do not contain celebrities, but devices. They're discontinued, from old manuals. These photos today have zero business value, but they're important to me for historical and educational reasons.

When I requested a permition, they replied: "No, you can't use them, we recommend you to make pics of our equipment in the field". I can try that, but you can't find everything you need around you. We're talking about devices used decades ago. Also, we are talking about old methods of working (e.g. tape splicing). I can't recreate such photos.


Now, this is my rationale, it includes some legal aspects, but also some moral and ethical ones:

1. The project will be educational and non-profit. Not only that I will not gain something from it, but I will lose. I will pay everything from my pocket. My monthly salary is 300 USD btw.

2. My country is a small and poor market (2 milion people), the interest for such a book is very low (only in narrow circles), so the copyright holder will not loose a cent

3. My native language is not widespread like english, spanish, french, german etc. It's a language spoken only in my country. It will be impossible to sell such a book abroad, even if I want to.

4. First I thought that the book should be sold for a low price just to cover the expenses, but I decided that it will be given for free. I will add "NOT FOR SALE" on the cover in both my language and english.

5. I will add fair use declaration somewhere on the first pages both in my language and english.

6. It will be a printed book and I will intentionally not publish it online to avoid piracy

7. There are no free alternatives to the photos that I need.

8. I'll try to ask for permition where possible, but for US sources, I will go with the fair use, which allows me to use materials without requesting permition, as long as I obey the rules.

9. I will add elements to the photos to focus on secondary objects, so I'm transforming the image and I give it a new meaning and purpose. Unlike the celebrity, who is ussually in the center of the photo, those secondary objects are on the side or in the background. They're not essential, they're not the core of the photo. They are often hardly noticeable for an untrained eye. Most celebrity photos do not include description of the equipment around them, which prooves that the photographer has absolutely no clue what these devices are. I often have to identify the devices myself.

10. The photos will be in the interior of the book, not on the cover. I will try to resize them to be small, however, in some cases, the object of interest is too small (somewhere in the background) and I will be forced to show a larger version of the photo.

11. Business has no mercy, everyone must respect and pay for someone else's work, but there's a point where public interest must prevail over someone's greed.

12. Films and songs are not just entertainment, some of them have a high cultural and historical value, they belong to the world's heritage and the public has a right to learn more about them.

13. If some photographer made photos of (let's say) The Beatles, he or she should be commended and payed for that, but there must be some limit. If he or she photographed The Beatles, it doesn't mean that he or she was one of The Beatles, he or she didn't write their songs, so he or she should not be allowed to "leech" on the their hard work forever.

I apologize if I sound harsh, but this copyright thing sucks all my energy and I can't concentrate on my work. This is almost like a "censorship".

Thank you

 100 
 on: 07-20-17 at 09:00 am 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi,

I am asking a question about which of my following 2 claim chains is better.

Claim 1: A method of ..., the method comprising:

..., at least one word being latched, ...

Claim 2: The method of claim 1 further comprising pushing a latched word in the at least one latched word into a device 1 if ...

Claim 3: The method of claim 2 further comprising outputting a latched word in the at least one latched word from the device 1 if ...

Claim 4: The method of claim 1 (or claim 3?) further comprising pushing an assistant word into a device 2 if ...

Claim 5: The method of claim 4 further comprising outputting the assistant word in the device 2 if a latched word in the at least one latched word is being output.

Question: Which claim chain is better, claim 1 or claim 3?

Claims 4 and 5 are complete and have no errors if they are based on claim 1.

Claims 4 and 5 are not only complete, but also they fully describes the outputting conditions in claim 3 if they are based on claim 3.

I want to use "of claim 1" instead of "of claim 3", because basing on claim 1 has already had a complete description, no errors and a greater coverage.

Thank you.

Weng

Pages: 1 ... 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 0.27 seconds with 18 queries.