Posts Tagged: "independent inventors"

Like anything in life that is new, whether it be returning to exercise after a lengthy hiatus or learning a new language, you have to walk before you can run. Put one foot in front of the other. Too often I see inventors who come up with the idea and want to cut through the middle steps and file a patent application. If they skip the middle steps then they likely don’t have an invention, they can get frustrated and give up… The moral of the story is that inventing is not rocket science; inventors are those with persistence and a plan. Spend time little by little working the idea, describing what you have in text, thinking about the various alternatives and then get some drawings. This step by step approach to inventing will get you from idea to invention, putting you in possession of all the information you will need to file a patent application and attract customers and potential licensees.

The goal in a patent application is to provide a full, clear, and exact description of the invention in a way that particularly points out and distinctly identifies what the inventor believes he or she has invented and wants the patent to cover. Unfortunately, while articulating an invention many inventors fall victim to a host of common mistakes. Saying that…

When we apply for a patent, we are sharing our secret, our discovery, with the world. In exchange for sharing our secret we are promised 20 years of exclusive rights, a promise signed and sealed by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. But with the PTAB, it means nothing. No guarantee. No warranty. Arguably a fraud. It will be revoked – by the same agency that issued it – at least 90 percent of the time.

The first thing to understand is that there is no such thing as contingency representation for purpose of preparing, filing and ultimately obtaining a patent. Patent attorneys and patent agents simply do not take contingency clients when the matter is patent procurement… Most inventors hate hearing this, but inventing is the easiest part of the entire process. This seemingly outrageous statement is perfectly accurate because inventing is the only part of the process that can be completely controlled. Once the invention is complete control shifts away from the inventor to others, like patent examiners and consumers, market forces take effect and even good inventions wind up being commercial failures.

The crux of this so-called adequate description requirement is that once the first four patentability requirements are satisfied the applicant still must describe the invention with enough particularity such that those skilled in the art will be able to make, use and understand the invention that was made by the inventor. For the most part this requirement can be explained as consisting of three major parts. First is the enablement requirement, next is the best mode requirement and finally is the written description requirement.

The nonobviousness requirement is a critical element to patentability. In essence, even if the applicant can demonstrate patentable subject matter, utility and novelty, the patent will not issue if the invention is trivial. In order to determine if an invention is trivial it is necessary to see if there was motivation in the prior art to do what the inventor has done, or if there is some reasonable expectation that the combination of elements would achieve a successful result. If the prior art does not explicitly, and with identity of elements, teach the invention, the patent applicant may still be thwarted if there are a number of references that, when combined, would produce the claimed invention.

Unfortunately, the patentability requirements are frequently misunderstood. For many who are not well versed in patent law one of the reasons it can be confusing when considering patentability is due to the fact that the first of the patentability requirements asks whether the invention exhibits patentable subject matter, or is patent eligible. The question of patent eligibility leads the many anti-patent zealots and other patent newbies to erroneously conclude that if an invention is patent eligible then a patent issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. So what is required for an invention to be patented? The patentability requirements mandate that the subject matter of the claimed invention be: (1) patent eligible; (2) useful, (3) new; (4) non-obvious; and (5) described with the particularity required so that people of skill in the relevant technology field or science can understand what the invention is, make the invention and use the invention without engaging in what the law calls undue experimentation.

This page and website contain contain detailed information to help inventors on the road from invention to patent… Below are a sampling of inventor help links to specific patent and invention related information throughout our website. As you read these articles you will invariably come across links to other articles of interest, which you can and really should read. While I believe inventors should take the time to read all of the pages throughout IPWatchdog.com, I have gone through the IPWatchdog.com archives and created several “reading assignments,” which will hopefully make the task of figuring out where to start more manageable, and which will help get you started. I recommend you do them in this order (i.e., starting with Reading Assignment 1), but if you find something that you just need to know then by all means jump ahead. You can also visit our Inventor Education Archive as well.

There is a great misunderstanding among many inventors and entrepreneurs regarding what many simply refer to as a provisional patent. The first thing that needs to be said is that there is no such thing as a provisional patent. Instead, what you file is called a provisional patent application… Now that the United States has become a first to file country and abandoned our historic first to invent ways it is critically important to file a patent application as soon as practically possible. Filing a provisional patent application that adequately describes the invention will establish priority and satisfies the need to act swiftly under first to file rules. A well prepared provisional patent application is your best friend in a first to file world.

Patents confer rights and when you have rights you have an asset that can be sold or licensed. But you will have an asset that can in some circumstances be sold or licensed even before you actually obtain a patent. Increasingly more and more companies are looking for outside ideas and inventors can and do strike deals before a patent is issued. It is true, however, that the further you are down the path toward a final solution being real the more valuable your invention will be. With this in mind, there may be instances where getting some patent protection quickly could be beneficial. This article discusses several strategies for more quickly obtaining a patent.

Perhaps the patent laws should not be so generous to allow inventors to protect that which they can describe on paper without any proof of a working prototype (which the law refers to as an actual reduction to practice), but that is the law and if you are going to file a patent application you might as well know it and seek the broadest protection possible. This being the case, the trick with drafting a patent application is to define anything that will work, no matter how crude, no matter how defective and regardless of whether you have tested or even have the ability to build and test the device yourself. You want to capture everything, on every level, from broad to specific and all versions of the invention in between. Thus, inventors need to look beyond what works best or is most desirable and consider what works at all. Anything you can articulate and convey can be yours for the taking, provided of course it is new and non-obvious.

A utility patent is one of three separate types of patents the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can award inventors to protect their inventions. Generally speaking, a utility patent will have a term that begins on the date the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date the application for the utility patent was filed in the United States. To obtain a utility patent a utility patent application must be filed at the U.S. Patent Office. Many inventors will choose to start the process toward obtaining a utility patent by filing a provisional patent application first and then within 12 months filing a non-provisional utility patent application.

As a general rule the ordinary plain meaning of the term as would be understood by someone of skill in the relevant technology area or science will be used. That may or may not be bad, and it may or may not be what you intended… When I teach this topic the example I tend to use relates to “standard room temperature.” If you have invented a process that needs to be carried out at 68 degrees F you might say that the process can or should be carried out at standard room temperature, for example. In the U.S. standard room temperature is generally referred to as 20 degrees C, which is 68 degrees F. But in some parts of the world what qualifies as standard room temperature is a bit warmer, sometimes up to 25 degrees C. So this illustration is particularly useful for several reasons. When you say standard room temperature did you even know that it has an accepted meaning in the scientific community? Were you aware that the meaning could vary depending upon whether the person reading the disclosure is in the United States or some other part of the world? This is where defining what you mean could be particularly important.

In simple terms: a patent is a grant of rights by the government, for a limited time, that can be used to stop others from making, using, or selling your invention… Knowing your reason for seeking a patent can help you decide whether it is worth the time, money, and effort to seek a patent. It can also help you and your attorney pick the right strategy in the beginning of the process, as well as make appropriate decisions along the way. Let’s consider the merits of each of these common reasons for seeking a patent. As we take a closer look, some of them are more compelling than others.

Inventors know very well what they have invented and what they plan to do with their invention. But the typical inventor has a terrible sense of what their invention could be… All too often inventors and entrepreneurs spend too much time with their heads down, plow forward, and focusing only on the day to day operations associated with inventing. This is, after all, what inventors do and the inventor’s mindset. There is a problem to be solved and solved it must be! The problem this creates, however, is that is prevents inventors from looking at the bigger picture as they are inventing, which can lead to a catastrophe if the tunnel vision gets too severe… It is also critical for inventors and entrepreneurs to have a strategy to succeed, which seems simple enough, but is typically anything but simple for the creative types that are so good at inventing. The goal is not to create an invention that is cool, the goal is not to get a patent, the goal is almost universally to make money. The cool invention and patent are a means to the end, not the end in and of themselves.