Infringement of ranges

[MYK]

I personally saw a television news report early in the administration of Bush 43 during his first trip (ever in his life) to Europe.  The reporter reported on an off-camera interview with Bush in which the reporter quoted Bush as saying, "The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur'."

Yes, and I frequently point out that English is the lingua franca of the world.  Also, did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?  Look it up!

(NOTE:  "entrepreneur" is a French word that we use in English because English has no word for "entrepreneur.")

Xaxaxaxaxa.  I keed.  I admit to feeling some schadenfreude over making such jokes.  (Note: "schadenfreude" is a German word that we use in English because English has no word for "schadenfreude".  By reusing foreign words, we avoid mottainai.  (Note: "mottainai" is a Japanese word that we use in English because English has no word for mottainai.))

[Dazed-n-confused]

I personally saw a television news report early in the administration of Bush 43 during his first trip (ever in his life) to Europe.  The reporter reported on an off-camera interview with Bush in which the reporter quoted Bush as saying, "The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur'."

Yes, and I frequently point out that English is the lingua franca of the world.  Also, did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?  Look it up!

(NOTE:  "entrepreneur" is a French word that we use in English because English has no word for "entrepreneur.")

Xaxaxaxaxa.  I keed.  I admit to feeling some schadenfreude over making such jokes.  (Note: "schadenfreude" is a German word that we use in English because English has no word for "schadenfreude".  By reusing foreign words, we avoid mottainai.  (Note: "mottainai" is a Japanese word that we use in English because English has no word for mottainai.))

The funny thing (which I did not bother to bring up earlier) is that Bush would have been more or less right anyway.  The French don't have a word for "entrepreneur", not the way we English-speakers use it.  When I learned French we were told we had to relearn the word because their use is closer to "contract worker".

But, je ne sais quoi?

[MYK]

The funny thing (which I did not bother to bring up earlier) is that Bush would have been more or less right anyway.  The French don't have a word for "entrepreneur", not the way we English-speakers use it.  When I learned French we were told we had to relearn the word because their use is closer to "contract worker".

But, je ne sais quoi?

Ah, a "false friend".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend

As opposed to a Lehnwort (which is the word we use for lehnworts, because English has no word for . . . umm, sorry, I guess we do just translate it to "loan word").

But at least the Japanese don't steal words from us. 

Typed on my パソコン

[bartmans]

To get back to the Original discussion: Patent Docs just discussed a new CAFC decision (In re Patel) on the patentability of ranges over the prior art (which I admit is not the same as the infringement of ranges, but maybe some principles would be similar). Interesting reading: http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/07/in-re-patel-fed-cir-2014.html

[JimIvey]

But at least the Japanese don't steal words from us. 

Seriously?  Ever heard of fujai logic?  "Fujai" is the Japanese spelling of "fuzzy" (or "fuzzy" said with a heavy Japanese accent) as in fuzzy logic.  (or what that a joke?  can't tell sometimes)

One funny story about Japanese accents.  Years ago, I had a friend from Japanese (exchange student).  I cautiously mentioned what I thought was a sensitive topic about how some Asians have trouble distinguishing English R's and L's.  She immediately launched into her exercises: "right, light, rate, late, rink, link, ..."  I said, "Wow!  Perfect!  No accent!"  She exclaimed, "Rearry?!"

Regards.

[Tobmapsatonmi]

To get back to the Original discussion: Patent Docs just discussed a new CAFC decision (In re Patel) on the patentability of ranges over the prior art (which I admit is not the same as the infringement of ranges, but maybe some principles would be similar). Interesting reading: http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/07/in-re-patel-fed-cir-2014.html

Thanks Bart, interesting case and interesting write-up by Noonan.

I'd be happy if someone could explain how a claim goes through examination, PTAB appeal, PTAB re-hearing and CAFC appeal without any one of the great brains involved noticing a drop-kick 112 rejection?

(Likely easily fixed, but claim 1 at issue here thrice recites "the polymer blend" which has no antecedent basis in the claim.  The term "a polyethylene blend" is in the claim, which is why I say it's an easy fix.  Still....)

This case to me represents a detour from the CAFC and PTO usual; I'm very surprised that 0-25% of a polymer in a blend (in a very similar invention) doesn't make 26% percent of that polymer in a blend obvious.



1.    A nonwoven material comprised of fibers having a surface comprising a polyethylene blend, said fibers being selected from the group consisting of monocomponent fibers, bicomponent fibers or mixtures thereof, said nonwoven material having a fuzz/abrasion less than or equal to 0.0214(BW) + 0.2714 mg/cm2 when the material comprises monocomponent fibers and said nonwoven material having a fuzz/abrasion less than or equal to 0.0071(BW) + 0.4071 mg/cm2 when the material consists of bicomponent fibers, wherein the fibers are from 0.1 to 50 denier and wherein the polymer blend comprises:
    a.    from 26 weight percent to 80 weight percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a first polymer which is a homogeneous ethylene/α-olefin interpolymerhaving:
        i.    a melt index of from about 1 to about 1000 grams/10 minutes, and
        ii.    a density of from 0.915 to 0.950 grams/centimeter3, and
    b.    from 74 to 20 percent by weight of a second polymer which is an ethylene homopolymer or an ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer having:
        i.    a melt index of from about 1 to about 1000 grams/10 minutes, and
        ii.    a density which is at least 0.01 grams/centimeter3 greater than the density of the first polymer
    wherein the overall melt index of the polymer blend is greater than 18 grams/10 min.

[JimIvey]

To get back to the Original discussion: Patent Docs just discussed a new CAFC decision (In re Patel) on the patentability of ranges over the prior art (which I admit is not the same as the infringement of ranges, but maybe some principles would be similar). Interesting reading: http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/07/in-re-patel-fed-cir-2014.html

Thanks Bart, interesting case and interesting write-up by Noonan.

Jeez!  What a little whiner!  (Noonan, I mean)

The Supreme Court has made a sport of reversing the Federal Circuit over the past decade or so, and other than reserved (and sometimes not so reserved) statements by members of the lower court, the Federal Circuit has (properly) deferred to the Supreme Court's decisions without much protest  ... .

What should a court expect when it just drops all DoE precedent and declares anew that all amendments related to patentability lop off all equivalents (Festo) and drops all 101 precedent and declares anew that M|T is the sole test for 101 eligibility?  I agree that I'd much rather have the Fed Cir rather than the SCt making patent law, but the Fed Cir has gone rogue in the last decade or so and has brought the Supreme beeatch-slaps on themselves.  It seems that, whenever the Fed Cir faces an area of law that's difficult to apply, they just lop it off and replace it with something simple -- and they just don't have the authority to ignore SCt authority.  If they would just stop whining and make and apply good law, the Supremes would just leave them alone -- and we wouldn't have to deal with stupid legal reasoning like we have in Benson and Alice.

Regards.

[Tobmapsatonmi]

To get back to the Original discussion: Patent Docs just discussed a new CAFC decision (In re Patel) on the patentability of ranges over the prior art (which I admit is not the same as the infringement of ranges, but maybe some principles would be similar). Interesting reading: http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/07/in-re-patel-fed-cir-2014.html

Thanks Bart, interesting case and interesting write-up by Noonan.

Jeez!  What a little whiner!

Not sure what I did to deserve that comment.

[MYK]

But at least the Japanese don't steal words from us. 

Seriously?

I would have thought that the "Typed on my パソコン" was a hint.

One funny story about Japanese accents.  Years ago, I had a friend from Japanese (exchange student).  I cautiously mentioned what I thought was a sensitive topic about how some Asians have trouble distinguishing English R's and L's.  She immediately launched into her exercises: "right, light, rate, late, rink, link, ..."  I said, "Wow!  Perfect!  No accent!"  She exclaimed, "Rearry?!"

Regards.

ROR!

The trouble with that exercise is, it's not clear whether she really meant to be saying "light, right, late, rate, link, rink, ...".  But, then, maybe
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/20/2011971352a6bd54a1739fed541ae8ec783920c81ae0b40303a9415c235991ad.jpg

[JimIvey]

Jeez!  What a little whiner!

Not sure what I did to deserve that comment.

So sorry.  I meant Noonan.

Ah, didn't see this at the bottom:

Regards.