http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Wed, 22 May 2013 16:49:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/11/patent-prosecution-112/id=37143/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/11/patent-prosecution-112/id=37143/#comments Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:04:38 +0000 Dale B. Halling http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=37143 Related posts:

1. Do Patent Applicants have a Chance at the CAFC?Do patent applicants appealing a rejection of their claims from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board have a chance of success at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? What about patentees appealing to the CAFC from rejections in reexamination proceedings? The candid answer is not much of a chance. Of course, every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Yet, the standards for review of Board decisions, followed by the CAFC, significantly favor affirmance of those decisions....
2. Making Progress with Difficult Patent ApplicationsSome patent applications are difficult to get agreement on. The examiner won’t allow and the applicant won’t abandon. The net result is that office actions and responses go back and forth with no apparent resolution in sight. We propose that progress with these difficult patent applications can be tracked by looking at two separate but interrelated metrics, “applicant effectiveness” and “examiner effectiveness”. These two metrics can then be used to diagnose and correct problems in patent prosecution and examination....
3. Making it Easier to Get a PatentContrary to popular belief, things are getting much better in business methods. Applications filed in 1999 had prosecution times of over 10 years (lower green arrow). These and subsequent applications jammed up the system leading to excessive delays to first office actions. Applications filed in 2004, for example, had delays to first office action of 6 years (middle red arrow). Sometime around 2010, however, things started to improve. A lot more patents started issuing and the delays to first office action dropped to around 2 years (upper red arrow). That’s not to say that it’s easy to get a patent...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/11/patent-prosecution-112/id=37143/feed/ 20 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/24/cafc-2012-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations-part-ii/id=33577/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/24/cafc-2012-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations-part-ii/id=33577/#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:30:12 +0000 Barry Herman & Jim Lennon http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=33577 Related posts:

1. Predicting Patentability in the Unpredictable Arts: A Look Back at the Federal Circuit’s 2012 Decisions on the Obviousness of Chemical InnovationsA few trends were readily apparent in 2012. First, pharmaceutical patent holders in litigation fared well – in a series of cases, the Federal Circuit rejected obviousness attacks in pharmaceutical patent challenges on appeal from the district courts. Second, patent holders appealing decisions from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (whether it be an original application, a reexamination, or a reissue) fared poorly – the Federal Circuit affirmed several Board decisions finding chemical patent claims obvious. While these trends are not surprising, a third more subtle trend suggests chemical patents in district court litigation may be less susceptible to...
2. Petition for Rehearing en banc filed in Plasmart v. KapposThis case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the...
3. KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious MessOn Monday, April 30, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its final decision in the matter of KSR v. Teleflex, which overruled the Federal Circuit's application of the so-called "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test (or simply TSM) as it applies to determining whether an invention is obvious. At least for the last generation (and likely longer) no other Supreme Court case in the patent arena has been nearly as influential as the Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. This is because obviousness is where the rubber meets the road for the patentability of inventions. This 5th Anniversary of the ruling...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/24/cafc-2012-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations-part-ii/id=33577/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/21/predicting-patentability-in-the-unpredictable-arts-a-look-back-at-the-federal-circuits-2012-decisions-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations/id=33581/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/21/predicting-patentability-in-the-unpredictable-arts-a-look-back-at-the-federal-circuits-2012-decisions-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations/id=33581/#comments Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:30:43 +0000 Barry Herman & Jim Lennon http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=33581 Related posts:

1. CAFC 2012 on the Obviousness of Chemical Innovations, Part IIIn contrast to the Federal Circuit’s 2012 decisions in the context of pharmaceutical litigation, its decisions with respect to appeals from the Board were much less favorable to those seeking patent protection. This is likely the result of the different standard applied to Board decisions – while the question of obviousness is one of law and reviewed de novo, it is based on factual findings, and the appellant must do more than simply demonstrate that the Board’s decision was wrong. Instead, the appellant will prevail only if he/she can show that the decision was not based on “substantial evidence.” Moreover,...
2. Obviousness When All Elements Not Present in Prior Art?The Tokai and Ritchie rationale seems to have never been cited by any other panels of the Court. While this may be due to many reasons, the fact that this reasoning could so easily invalidate virtually any claim in any patent, combined with the fact that it has only scarcely been utilized by the Court, suggests that this is an extraordinarily important issue for the Court as a whole to consider....
3. CAFC Rules Patent Claims Obviously Common SenseEarlier today in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc. the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the district court properly ruled the relevant patent claims of US Patent No. 6,631,400 were invalid as a result of being obvious. In so doing, Judge Linn writing for the panel (consisting additional [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/21/predicting-patentability-in-the-unpredictable-arts-a-look-back-at-the-federal-circuits-2012-decisions-on-the-obviousness-of-chemical-innovations/id=33581/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/#comments Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:12:25 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26462 Related posts:

1. Petition for Rehearing en banc filed in Plasmart v. KapposThis case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the...
2. How Much Deference Should the CAFC Give the USPTO?A factual determination of the Board is to be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and a finding is supported by substantial evidence if reasonable minds might accept the evidence as supporting the factual finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). This has been translated by the Federal Circuit to mean “is the determination unreasonable?” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....
3. KSR Fears Realized: CAFC Off the Obviousness Deep EndYesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a split decision with Judge Lourie writing and Judge Bryson joining, took a step forward in the evolution of the law of obviousness that confirms my worst fears about obviousness in this post-KSR era. It has been argued by many that even after KSR it is not an appropriate rejection, or reason to invalidate an issued claim, that it would be "common sense" to modify elements within the prior art in a wholly new way and then combine the "common sense" modifications. I did agree that was true,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/feed/ 3 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/11/how-much-deference-should-the-cafc-give-the-uspto/id=26292/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/11/how-much-deference-should-the-cafc-give-the-uspto/id=26292/#comments Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:51:56 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26292 Related posts:

1. Petition for Rehearing en banc filed in Plasmart v. KapposThis case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the...
2. Obviousness When All Elements Not Present in Prior Art?The Tokai and Ritchie rationale seems to have never been cited by any other panels of the Court. While this may be due to many reasons, the fact that this reasoning could so easily invalidate virtually any claim in any patent, combined with the fact that it has only scarcely been utilized by the Court, suggests that this is an extraordinarily important issue for the Court as a whole to consider....
3. Do Patent Applicants have a Chance at the CAFC?Do patent applicants appealing a rejection of their claims from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board have a chance of success at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? What about patentees appealing to the CAFC from rejections in reexamination proceedings? The candid answer is not much of a chance. Of course, every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Yet, the standards for review of Board decisions, followed by the CAFC, significantly favor affirmance of those decisions....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/11/how-much-deference-should-the-cafc-give-the-uspto/id=26292/feed/ 7 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/10/petition-for-rehearing-en-banc-filed-in-plasmart-v-kappos/id=26290/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/10/petition-for-rehearing-en-banc-filed-in-plasmart-v-kappos/id=26290/#comments Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:57:25 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26290 Related posts:

1. How Much Deference Should the CAFC Give the USPTO?A factual determination of the Board is to be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and a finding is supported by substantial evidence if reasonable minds might accept the evidence as supporting the factual finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). This has been translated by the Federal Circuit to mean “is the determination unreasonable?” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....
2. Obviousness When All Elements Not Present in Prior Art?The Tokai and Ritchie rationale seems to have never been cited by any other panels of the Court. While this may be due to many reasons, the fact that this reasoning could so easily invalidate virtually any claim in any patent, combined with the fact that it has only scarcely been utilized by the Court, suggests that this is an extraordinarily important issue for the Court as a whole to consider....
3. CAFC 2012 on the Obviousness of Chemical Innovations, Part IIIn contrast to the Federal Circuit’s 2012 decisions in the context of pharmaceutical litigation, its decisions with respect to appeals from the Board were much less favorable to those seeking patent protection. This is likely the result of the different standard applied to Board decisions – while the question of obviousness is one of law and reviewed de novo, it is based on factual findings, and the appellant must do more than simply demonstrate that the Board’s decision was wrong. Instead, the appellant will prevail only if he/she can show that the decision was not based on “substantial evidence.” Moreover,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/10/petition-for-rehearing-en-banc-filed-in-plasmart-v-kappos/id=26290/feed/ 2 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/16/understanding-obviousness-john-deere-and-the-basics/id=25543/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/16/understanding-obviousness-john-deere-and-the-basics/id=25543/#comments Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:30:40 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=25543 Related posts:

1. The Nonobviousness RequirementObviousness is a critical element to patentability, and can be found in Title 35, Section 103. 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 [...]...
2. Patentability Overview: Obviousness and Adequate DescriptionIn a nutshell, an invention would be obvious when someone knowledgable about the area would look at your invention and consider it to be already known; not exactly but rather known if one were to combine several references. In other words, the predictable and non-unique combination of what multiple references teach would yield your invention. The prototypical example is when you have invented A+B. A is known in the prior art, and B is known in the prior art. Upon looking at A and then looking at B, would someone of skill in the art consider A+B to be already...
3. KSR Fears Realized: CAFC Off the Obviousness Deep EndYesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a split decision with Judge Lourie writing and Judge Bryson joining, took a step forward in the evolution of the law of obviousness that confirms my worst fears about obviousness in this post-KSR era. It has been argued by many that even after KSR it is not an appropriate rejection, or reason to invalidate an issued claim, that it would be "common sense" to modify elements within the prior art in a wholly new way and then combine the "common sense" modifications. I did agree that was true,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/16/understanding-obviousness-john-deere-and-the-basics/id=25543/feed/ 8 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/#comments Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:57:11 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=25191 Related posts:

1. Adequate Description RequirementThe 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 [...]...
2. Describing Your Invention in a Patent ApplicationWhen you file a patent application it is always necessary to file an application that completely and clearly describes the invention so that others would be able to understand the invention.  For new inventors it is sometimes difficult to understand the so-called description requirement to patentability.  It is not an overstatement to say that the [...]...
3. Some Heretical Thoughts on the Ariad Case: What Does “Any Person Skilled in the Art” Mean and Should It Apply to the “Written Description” Requirement?In probably the most significant case since In re Bilski, the en banc Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly is about to ponder two questions:  (1) is there a separate and distinct “written description” requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?; and (2) if there is, what does it mean?  [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/feed/ 11 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/30/ksr-103-unconstitutional/id=24471/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/30/ksr-103-unconstitutional/id=24471/#comments Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:50:58 +0000 Dale B. Halling http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=24471 Related posts:

1. Another KSR RetrospectiveOn that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this [...]...
2. KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious MessOn Monday, April 30, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its final decision in the matter of KSR v. Teleflex, which overruled the Federal Circuit's application of the so-called "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test (or simply TSM) as it applies to determining whether an invention is obvious. At least for the last generation (and likely longer) no other Supreme Court case in the patent arena has been nearly as influential as the Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. This is because obviousness is where the rubber meets the road for the patentability of inventions. This 5th Anniversary of the ruling...
3. Just Common Sense: U.S. Supreme Court is Anti-InnovationIf you are anti-patent then you are anti-innovation because those who innovate are not the behemoths of industry, but rather start-up companies that absolutely require patents in order to attract funding, expand and create jobs. Thus, given the hostility toward patents it is entirely accurate to characterize the Roberts Court as anti-innovation. The Roberts Court increasingly puts hurdles in the way of high-tech job growth. You see, it is easy for anyone to characterize the Supreme Court as "pro-business" because selecting a victor in a "business case" almost necessarily means that a business has been victorious. But what business? One...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/30/ksr-103-unconstitutional/id=24471/feed/ 126 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/#comments Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:36:11 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=24456 Related posts:

1. Chief Judge Rader Says KSR Didn’t Change Anything, I DisagreeUpon hearing Rader make such a bold statement the first thought that ran through my mind was — Really? Did he just say that? I have heard from others for some time that Rader has been heard to say these or similar things relating to obviousness, but I just discounted them as one would discount the output of a game of telephone. After something gets stated, shared and restated there is typically little of the same message remaining. That had to be why Rader was reported to have said such curious things about obviousness and the impact of KSR. But...
2. Another KSR RetrospectiveOn that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this [...]...
3. US Patent Office Issues Update to KSR Examination GuidelinesThe United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided an update to its Examination Guidelines concerning the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of precedential decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued since the 2007 decision by the United States Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The Updated Guidelines were published today in the Federal Register, and in response to the requests of many stakeholders the USPTO has included additional examples to help elucidate the ever-evolving law of obviousness. These guidelines are intended primarily to be used by...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/feed/ 9 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/10/the-law-of-recipes-are-recipes-patentable/id=22223/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/10/the-law-of-recipes-are-recipes-patentable/id=22223/#comments Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:04:21 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=22223 Related posts:

1. KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious MessOn Monday, April 30, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its final decision in the matter of KSR v. Teleflex, which overruled the Federal Circuit's application of the so-called "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test (or simply TSM) as it applies to determining whether an invention is obvious. At least for the last generation (and likely longer) no other Supreme Court case in the patent arena has been nearly as influential as the Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. This is because obviousness is where the rubber meets the road for the patentability of inventions. This 5th Anniversary of the ruling...
2. Patentability Overview: When can an Invention be Patented?Unfortunately, the patentability requirements are frequently misunderstood, including by the United States Supreme Court. 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. This is sometimes phrased in terms of patent eligibility, which leads the many anti-patent zealots and other patent neophytes to erroneously conclude that if an invention is patent eligible then a patent issues. Nothing could be further from the truth, but those who hate the...
3. Another KSR RetrospectiveOn that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/10/the-law-of-recipes-are-recipes-patentable/id=22223/feed/ 10 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/06/chief-judge-rader-says-ksr-didnt-change-anything-i-disagree/id=19603/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/06/chief-judge-rader-says-ksr-didnt-change-anything-i-disagree/id=19603/#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:05:01 +0000 Gene Quinn http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=19603 Related posts:

1. KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious MessOn Monday, April 30, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its final decision in the matter of KSR v. Teleflex, which overruled the Federal Circuit's application of the so-called "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test (or simply TSM) as it applies to determining whether an invention is obvious. At least for the last generation (and likely longer) no other Supreme Court case in the patent arena has been nearly as influential as the Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. This is because obviousness is where the rubber meets the road for the patentability of inventions. This 5th Anniversary of the ruling...
2. Another KSR RetrospectiveOn that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this [...]...
3. Obviousness When All Elements Not Present in Prior Art?The Tokai and Ritchie rationale seems to have never been cited by any other panels of the Court. While this may be due to many reasons, the fact that this reasoning could so easily invalidate virtually any claim in any patent, combined with the fact that it has only scarcely been utilized by the Court, suggests that this is an extraordinarily important issue for the Court as a whole to consider....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/06/chief-judge-rader-says-ksr-didnt-change-anything-i-disagree/id=19603/feed/ 60 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/08/05/uspto-to-hold-california-independent-inventors-conference/id=18581/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/08/05/uspto-to-hold-california-independent-inventors-conference/id=18581/#comments Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:33:24 +0000 Gene Quinn http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=18581 Related posts:

1. USPTO Florida Regional Inventors Conference – April 27-28The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Invent Now® and the National Academy of Inventors™ invite you to the Florida Regional Inventors Conference, a great chance to get practical advice from expert USPTO staff and to network with fellow creative entrepreneurs. The conference will be held April 27-28, 2012 at the Embassy Suites Hotel located on the campus of the University of South Florida. ...
2. USPTO to Hold Inventors Conference in Austin, TX – Sept. 14-15Inventors who attend these USPTO sponsored inventor conferences will receive practical advice from successful inventors, experienced practitioners and USPTO officials. The registration fee is $80 per person ($70 for seniors or students) and includes all sessions and presentations, morning and afternoon refreshments, lunch both days and the networking reception. Having been involved several times with the conference when it is held in Alexandria, Virginia, I can say first hand that this event is excellent, informative and educational. I highly recommend it for inventors and business people who need to become more familiar with patents and trademarks....
3. USPTO to Host 15th Annual Independent Inventors ConferenceLike other years, the agenda is filled with great educational programs, such as commercializing intellectual property through licensing, claim drafting for beginners, advanced claim drafting, why file a provisional patent application, licensing vs. direct marketing, considerations for foreign filing, how to work with a patent practitioner and many other great sessions. There will be lunch presentations each day as well. On Thursday, November 4, 2010, the lunch speaker will be Arthur Fry, National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductee, Co-inventor of the Post It Notes. On Friday, November 5, 2010, the lunch speaker will be David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/08/05/uspto-to-hold-california-independent-inventors-conference/id=18581/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/11/the-constitutional-underpinnings-of-patent-law/id=16865/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/11/the-constitutional-underpinnings-of-patent-law/id=16865/#comments Wed, 11 May 2011 15:50:07 +0000 Gene Quinn http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=16865 Related posts:

1. Patents, Copyrights and the Constitution, Perfect TogetherAs James Madison stated in Federalist Paper No. 43, the usefulness of the Congresses power to award both patents and copyrights “will scarcely be questioned.” Madison, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 512-13 (Hunt and Scott ed. 1920). Given that today’s business world is increasingly based on a company’s ability to innovate and acquire intangible assets in the form of both copyrights and patents, it would appear as if the constitutional goal of stimulating creativity and invention has been wildly successful....
2. PatentA patent is a proprietary right granted by the Federal government to an inventor who files a patent application with the United States Patent Office. There are three types of patents available in the United States: (1) a utility patent, which covers the functional aspects of products and processes; (2) a design patent, which covers [...]...
3. Patentability Overview: When can an Invention be Patented?Unfortunately, the patentability requirements are frequently misunderstood, including by the United States Supreme Court. 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. This is sometimes phrased in terms of patent eligibility, which leads the many anti-patent zealots and other patent neophytes to erroneously conclude that if an invention is patent eligible then a patent issues. Nothing could be further from the truth, but those who hate the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/05/11/the-constitutional-underpinnings-of-patent-law/id=16865/feed/ 8 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/01/ksr-fears-federal-circuit-off-the-deep-end/id=14807/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/01/ksr-fears-federal-circuit-off-the-deep-end/id=14807/#comments Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:29:13 +0000 Gene Quinn http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=14807 Related posts:

1. Obviousness When All Elements Not Present in Prior Art?The Tokai and Ritchie rationale seems to have never been cited by any other panels of the Court. While this may be due to many reasons, the fact that this reasoning could so easily invalidate virtually any claim in any patent, combined with the fact that it has only scarcely been utilized by the Court, suggests that this is an extraordinarily important issue for the Court as a whole to consider....
2. Petition for Rehearing en banc filed in Plasmart v. KapposThis case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the...
3. Judge Kathleen O’Malley Finally Confirmed by Senate for CAFCJudge Kathleen O'Malley was confirmed by the United States Senate earlier today. O'Malley's confirmation, along with the confirmation of 18 others in recent days, is the result of a deal between Senate Democrats and Republicans that ensured passage of 19 nominations in exchange for an agreement not to move forward with other controversial nominations, including the hotly challenged nomination of Goodwin Lui, who is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at University of California Berkeley School of Law. ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/01/ksr-fears-federal-circuit-off-the-deep-end/id=14807/feed/ 98