Comments on: Method for Getting an Interview with David Kappos http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/ Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:46:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: uberVU - social comments http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/#comment-9487 uberVU - social comments Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:18:30 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7336#comment-9487 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> 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... 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...

]]> By: Paul F. Morgan http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/#comment-9449 Paul F. Morgan Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:46:11 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7336#comment-9449 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) . 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) .

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/#comment-9436 Gene Quinn Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:22:33 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7336#comment-9436 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 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

]]> By: Paul F. Morgan http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/#comment-9434 Paul F. Morgan Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:16:04 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7336#comment-9434 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. 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.

]]>