If the result is that examiners will be given adequate time and resources to examine applications on the merits prior to a notice of appeal, I'm for it.Bwahahaha! Comedy gold there, Jim.
|
The Intellectual Property Forum |
- 05-26-13 at 01:34 am
- Welcome, Guest
News:
New registrations are now permitted.
|
91
on: 05-20-13 at 09:03 pm
|
||
| Started by ChrisWhewell - Last post by MYK | ||
|
|
||
|
92
on: 05-20-13 at 09:02 pm
|
||
| Started by potbro - Last post by MYK | ||
I wasn't complaining, just making an observation.Yeah, that's enough of that. Banned.He just needed to mellow out. |
||
|
93
on: 05-20-13 at 08:59 pm
|
||
| Started by newlyminted - Last post by MYK | ||
MYK:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LARx7M9s15w |
||
|
94
on: 05-20-13 at 08:57 pm
|
||
| Started by wondererrrr - Last post by MYK | ||
Oops. Good point -- I've only had to look into that once, and keep forgetting that contractors are the ones who fall under that list of nine categories, not employees. |
||
answer material for a test, (9) an atlas;|
95
Patents / Patent Drafting/Interpretation / Re: "at least one of A, B, and C" vs. "at least one of A, B, or C"
on: 05-20-13 at 04:44 pm
|
||
| Started by soulflower - Last post by smgsmc | ||
|
Let me start with a clean example:
1. An apparatus comprising: a first plate; a second plate; and at least one fastener fastening the first plate to the second plate; wherein the at least one fastener comprises a screw, a nail, or a rivet. Now if "a screw, a nail, or a rivet" is construed as a list of mutually exclusive fasteners, would two plates fastened with one screw and one rivet infringe? Under the mutually exclusive constraint, we could not mix the fasteners: we must have all screws, all nails, or all rivets. But your argument is that the "comprising" would allow us to work around that. That is true. So there's a contradiction of sorts here. |
||
|
96
Patents / Patent Drafting/Interpretation / Re: "at least one of A, B, and C" vs. "at least one of A, B, or C"
on: 05-20-13 at 04:36 pm
|
||
| Started by soulflower - Last post by smgsmc | ||
Jeez, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there's a good reason to use Markush groups, even for simple lists. After going through enough scenarios, I got convinced. |
||
|
97
on: 05-20-13 at 03:00 pm
|
||
| Started by wondererrrr - Last post by JimIvey | ||
What if I create it myself? Then, as author, you'd be the default copyright owner. No need to worry about "work for hire." FWIW, MYK's answers were pretty much exactly what I was going to say, except that I wasn't going to search trademarks. While I have no reason to believe that this will be a problem with The Red Balloon, some iconic images -- more specifically people who consider themselves to be owners of iconic images -- conflate copyright and trademark law. Have you ever seen the Lone Cypress south of Monterey in California? There's a sign in front of it that warns against taking pictures of the Lone Cypress because it's a famous trademark of some local company that claims to be in pretty much every market that exists. Naturally, that's ludicrous -- you all can take all the pics you want of the Lone Cypress. No trademark implications arise if you don't use the pic as a trademark. And, copyright allows you to take pics of whatever you want, except perhaps other people's original works of art. In addition, I was pretty sure the Lone Cypress Trading Company (I think that was the company) was not involved in patent law or anything remotely close to it, so I set out to get a really good original photo of the Lone Cypress for my web site. My then wife insisted that this was a sleeping dog that I should let lie, so I gave it up. And, I couldn't get the real good black and white silhouette effect I wanted. Regards. |
||
|
98
Patents / Patent Drafting/Interpretation / Re: "at least one of A, B, and C" vs. "at least one of A, B, or C"
on: 05-20-13 at 02:46 pm
|
||
| Started by soulflower - Last post by JimIvey | ||
I thought it was well established that the open-ended construction "An apparatus comprising ..." allows for a second fastener. The way I read the claim was that "a first plate fastened to a second plate with a fastener" was a single element of the claim. If the claim were in this format, I'd agree that a second fastener is allowed: 1. An apparatus comprising: a first plate; a second plate; and a fastener that fastens the first plate to the second plate; wherein the fastener comprises a screw, a nail, or a rivet. I'd like to hear back from Karen why she considers the elements of her list to be mutually exclusive. Oh, I see, you're challenging Karen's suggestion that "or" clauses recite mutually exclusive alternatives. But I'm still not quite following. The second fastener isn't recited in the claim, so it doesn't defeat infringement as long as the first fastener is there. So, even if the second fastener is a nut-bolt combination, the accused still infringes by the open-endedness of "comprising". I'm also having trouble wrapping my mind around a fastener that isn't just one of the listed things, e.g., a combination of a screw and a rivet. I suppose there are those twisted nails that could arguably be both a nail and a screw. I think I agree that "or" doesn't necessarily mean mutual exclusivity, but I'm having a hard time -- at least in this example -- finding where it matters. Given that the fastener "comprises" one of those things, you can add more of those things to the fastener without avoiding infringement. It seems that whether the elements of the list are mutually exclusive is immaterial, at least in this example. Okay, replace "the faster comprises" with "the fastener is" and I think the problem emerges. What if the fastener is a combination of a nail and a screw -- perhaps a hinge in which the hinge post is a nail and the hinge is mounted using screws? The combination (the hinge) is neither a nail nor a screw. I think in this case Karen is right. Jeez, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there's a good reason to use Markush groups, even for simple lists. Regards. |
||
|
99
on: 05-20-13 at 01:30 pm
|
||
| Started by wondererrrr - Last post by wondererrrr | ||
|
What if I create it myself?
|
||
|
100
on: 05-20-13 at 01:19 pm
|
||
| Started by Oh, Crud - Last post by Oh, Crud | ||
|
Thanks Thomas - but sorry, I should have mentioned originally that I'd already been on that site. It will tell give you good administrative status, but not the actual file. I'm beginning to suspect for CA it's not available. Haven't had any luck with KIPO yet either...
|
||
Footer
| www.intelproplaw.com |
Terms of Use
iKnight Technologies Inc. |
www.intelproplaw.com |
