Today's Date: November 24, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Method for Getting an Interview with David Kappos


Written by Gene Quinn
Patent Attorney & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc.
Principal Lecturer, PLI Patent Bar Review Course
Posted: November 19, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

View Gene Quinn's profile on LinkedIn

Tell A Friend!



#The 1 Patent Bar Review Course
LIVE or HOME STUDY ~ CLICK HERE to REGISTER
Call 888.296.5973 and mention "IPWatchdog" to save 10%


USPTO Director David Kappos

USPTO Director David Kappos

Last week I chatted via phone with Terry Carter, a journalist working on a story for publication in the ABA Journal.  We talked about a number of different patent topics, and I am certainly looking forward to reading his article when it appears.  Later on in the week Carter informed me that he was having difficulty getting through red tape at the Patent Office to schedule an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.  He told me he was thinking about trying to prepare a patent application on a method to get an interview with David Kappos, which he thought might bring a chuckle to those within the Patent Office and perhaps make it easier to get a return phone call.  It seemed like a very creative plan, so I offered my assistance and over the span of a couple hours we put together a mock patent application for a method of getting an interview with one David Kappos. I turned to my own invention — the Invent & Patent System — to create a first draft of the application, sent it off to Carter and after the exchange of a few e-mails it was good enough for its intended purpose and I understand it was faxed to the Patent Office. It did indeed help Carter cut through the red tape and schedule an interview with Director Kappos for early next week.  Mission accomplished!

Some other websites have mentioned this (see Patent That, for example) and the ABA Journal Online published a version of the application in slightly shortened form.  I think it turned out pretty well, and is clearly fully enabled given that following the method actually resulted in an interview being granted.  It is good to see that the PR folks at the Patent Office have a sense of humor.  Patent attorneys and agents work with creative people every day, so it is refreshing to see that the Patent Office can appreciate extraordinary efforts to get their attention.  Indeed, many people are very happy with the Obama Administration approach to innovation and the US patent system, so it is not surprising that a Kappos interview is highly desirable.  I know he can’t speak with everyone, but getting his message out to people and acknowledging such creativity is definitely a welcome sign.  I am not sure that folks inside the Patent Office would have responded this way during certain other Administrations, but a kinder, gentler Patent Office does seem to be what we have now, and one with a sense of humor.  Bonus!

Without further ado, here is the full and unedited version of the application covering an invention conceived by Terry Carter.  I am not sure it will ultimately be patentable, the outcome of the Bilski case at the Supreme Court will likely decide that, but there is no doubting that it is creative!



Method for a journalist to get an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos
By: Terry Carter, ABA Journal

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to Method for a journalist to set up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.

2. Background

Currently there are a number of solutions for reaching Kappos, such as contacting the Office of Public Affairs/Press and Media Relations. Some of these solutions attempt to get phone calls and/or emails returned, but these solutions fail to meet the needs of the industry because the pendency period for such requests might exceed that for a patent. Other solutions attempt to get through the gatekeepers, but these solutions are similarly unable to meet the needs of the industry because the gate is locked. Still other solutions seek to sit by the telephone and wait, but these solutions also fail to meet industry needs because of deadlines.

It would be desirable to have a process for using humor to crack the gate at the highest levels that might gain the USPTO’s attention and facilitate scheduling an interview. Furthermore, it would also be desirable to have a process that provides a faster track for reporters than either the Office of Public Affairs or filing mock patent applications. Still further, it would be desirable to have a process for getting interviews with the director. Therefore, there currently exists a need in the industry for a process that keeps reporters somewhat in good graces with editors and news organization’s readers/viewers/listeners better understand the workings of the USPTO,

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention advantageously fills the aforementioned deficiencies by providing a Method for a journalist to get an interview with the director which provides a better news story.

The present invention is a method of setting up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos, which consists of the following steps: getting someone in the USPTO to return a reporter’s contact attempts; make arrangements for an interview with the director and schedule it.

The present invention may also include one or more of the following steps: (1) Consulting with a patent attorney, such as Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog.com, to discuss how to prepare a patent application that would get noticed by someone in the Director’s Office as a unique and creative way to demonstrate the overwhelming desire for an interview; and (2) violate all ethical rules and offer Peter Pappas ONE DOLLAR AMERICAN to make the arrangements.

The present invention method is unique when compared with other known processes and solutions in that it: (1) might work; (2) is better than waiting for the telephone to ring; and (3) provides reporters a primer on how patent applications are prepared.

The present invention is unique in that it is different from other known processes or solutions. More specifically, the present invention owes its uniqueness to the fact that it: (1) attempts to jump in line in front of all pending applications; (2) assumes the director has a sense of humor; and (3) assumes the director has a sense of duty in helping represent the USPTO to a very large readership of lawyers, academics and judges.

Among other things, it is an objective of the present invention to provide a method for actually being able to set up an interview and speak with a political appointee at the Undersecretary level or higher, for example the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, who is otherwise known as the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property.

Further still, it is an object of the present invention to provide a solution that does not suffer from any of the problems or deficiencies associated with prior solutions.

The present invention now will be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, which are intended to be read in conjunction with both this summary, the detailed description and any preferred and/or particular embodiments specifically discussed or otherwise disclosed. This invention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein; rather, these embodiments are provided by way of illustration only and so that this disclosure will be thorough, complete and will fully convey the full scope of the invention to those skilled in the art.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Fig. 1 is a pictorial representation of a preferred embodiment of the present invention in the form of an electronic business telephone desk-set

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed to Method of setting up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.

In its most complete version, the present invention consists of the following steps: fill in a heck of a lot of blanks made that way by deleting phrases within brackets such as this one: {INSERT LIST OF ALL STEPS}. It should further be noted that this is more time consuming than anticipated, but I need the interview. That makes the technique as special as any mother’s child.

Referring now to the figures, FIG. 1 pictorially illustrates the electronic business telephone (EBT) of the present invention in the form of a desk set terminal shown generally at 10. The operator interface with the EBT is provided by handset 12, which includes a conventional microphone pick up and speaker, keyboard 14 and digital display panel 16. The handset is used in the conventional manner as an electroacoustical transducer to convert audible sounds into electronic impulses and vice versa for two-way voice message communication. This, or similar device, would be used by the present inventor to call the Director’s representative, perhaps a secretary or executive assistant (not shown) for the purpose of setting up an interview. The interview could then be conducted in person, or via a device functionally equivalent to the device shown here in FIG. 1.

While the present invention has been described above in terms of specific embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to these disclosed embodiments. Many modifications and other embodiments of the invention will come to mind of those skilled in the art to which this invention pertains, and which are intended to be and are covered by both this disclosure and the appended claims. It is indeed intended that the scope of the invention should be determined by proper interpretation and construction of the entirety of the disclosure, as understood by those of skill in the art relying upon the information contained within this specification and the attached drawings.

What is claimed is:

1. A method for a journalist to set up and conduct an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos comprising:
a. preparing what is perceived to be a humorous patent application that will get noticed by an individual with the ability to schedule an in person interview of a USPTO Director and a journalist;
b. provoking communication between said individual and said journalist to set up said interview;
c. making arrangements for said interview with said Director and scheduling said interview at a mutually convenient time;
d. conducting said interview.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said Director is David Kappos.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein said journalist is Terry Carter.

4. The method of claim 3 further comprising consulting with a patent attorney to discuss how to prepare a patent application that might get noticed by said Director and identified as a unique and creative way to demonstrate an overwhelming desire for said interview.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein said patent attorney is Gene Quinn.

6. The method of claim 5 further comprising violating all ethical rules and offering a public relations individual ONE DOLLAR AMERICAN to schedule said interview.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein said public relations individual is Peter Pappas.

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to method of a journalist getting an interview with the USPTO director. which provides for a thorough news feature. In order to carry out this method the following core steps are followed: Fax a mock patent application to the dirtector’s office. Core method: seek help on doing so via software mentor, patent pending. Ultimately, at the conclusion of these steps will get the in person interview, despite what the sole figure in this application implies.

Borrowed from US Patent No. 3,932,709, issued January 13, 1976

- - - - - - - - - -

For information on this and related topics please see these archives:

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, USPTO

About the Author

is a Patent Attorney and the founder of the popular blog IPWatchdog.com, which has for three of the last four years (i.e., 2010, 2012 and 2103) been recognized as the top intellectual property blog by the American Bar Association. He is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course. As an electrical engineer with a computer engineering focus his specialty is electronic and computer devices, Internet applications, software and business methods.

 

4 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Tut tut, this applcation is replete with “the invention ..” statements and uses the subtitle “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.” the CAFC has repeatedly used that against patentees to narrow their claims in recent years.

  2. Paul-

    So let me get this straight…. you would like to file a patent application that doesn’t describe the invention. Brilliant! Please, can we try and keep it real!

    If you want to cast stones go right ahead. Two can play at that game. You know as well as I do what those cases say and mean, yet you seek to mislead. Why? Is business that slow for you?

    Patent applications cover inventions and patent attorneys that don’t know that and refuse to explain what the invention is, and what alternative embodiments of the invention are, play games and file applications that do not satisfy the written description and enablement requirements.

    Please Paul, do tell. How do you hide the ball when you write an application? Do you simply not reference the invention at all? Now that is a winning strategy!

    -Gene

  3. Gene, you certainly are touchy, and non sequitor. My simple point is one that has been made is several CLE seminars on patent application preparations. Namely, that CAFC has made claim-narrowing decisions exxpressly based at least in part on the patent using the WORD “invention” in the specification, See, e.g., C. R. Bard Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp; No. 04-1135, (Fed. Cir. 2004); Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int’l Trade Commission, 75 F.3d 1545, 1551(Fed. Cir. 1996); Storage Technology Corp. v Cisco Systems Inc., 66 USPQ 2d 1545 at 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [where the Court expressly relied on the fact that a particular term was used in a subtitled “Summary of the Invention” specification paragraph to render that term (which was only in the claim preamble) an express claim limitation]. Also, SciMed Life Systems Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 11/14/01) and Gaus v. Conair Corp. 70 USPQ2d 1380 at 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .

  4. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Method for Getting an Interview with David Kappos – It really works. Terry Carter of the ABA Journal is the “inventor.” http://bit.ly/2fKhdy