Posts Tagged: "claims"

I have wondered out loud whether the Judges of the Federal Circuit realize that the outcome is unpredictable until the panel has been announced. It seems that at least some do. How is that defensible? How do others not on the Court not see a problem? The law needs to be certain and predictable and at the Federal Circuit far too many times it is neither. Claims construction is but one of the areas as clear as mud. The Federal Circuit was created to bring certainty to the law, but what has transpired over the course of the last 10 years or so seems to be anything but certainty and stability. For crying out loud a patent is a property right and for any property rights regime to flourish it must be stable and certain! In the words of this generation: OMG!

Method or process claims will include active steps to achieve a certain result. In method claims the transition is typically either “comprising” or “comprising the steps of.” While legally there may be some distinction between these two different transitions, both are acceptable. It is also important to understand that each of the steps in a method or process claims use gerunds, which are a form of a verb that ends in “ing” and operates to direct the action that is to take place. Said another way, you must use “ing” words in method claims. You cannot define a method or process in the past tense.

It takes time to prepare a detailed written disclosure that will support any number of claims, and there is just no way to rush it. Inventors and entrepreneurs intuitively know this, but they get lured into believing that what they get for $1,400 is just as good as what they would get if they paid $8,000, which is unrealistic of course. You cannot fall for what you want to hear when you deep down know it makes no sense. If you aren’t convinced ask yourself this: when you were in school and you had to write a paper for a grade, was the resulting paper better if you spent more time or less time working on the project? The reality is the more time you have to spend the better the work product.

Two months ago I wrote about one of my favorite patents — The Animal Toy — which is U.S. Patent No. 6,360,693. See Patent on a Stick: Learning from the Animal Toy Patent. Shortly after writing that article, which was not intended to poke fun at the Patent Office but to merely teach a point relative to claim drafting, I received an e-mail from Stephen Kunin, who is a partner at Oblon Spivak, LLP. Steve wrote to me indicating that this patent was reexamined by the Patent Office and none of the claims exited reexamination. This in and of itself may not be very odd, but something didn’t seem quite right.

Claim #1, the broadest claim in this patent, says that this “animal toy” has a solid main section, at least one protrusion and is adapted for floating in the water. While not every stick would infringe claim 1 of this patent, I would venture that there are many which would. No need to worry, however. This patent fell into the public domain on March 26, 2010, for failure to make the first maintenance fee payment. The lesson here, however, is not that the Patent Office occasionally makes a mistake (true though that may be). The fact that a patent can be obtained or has been obtained does not mean that a valuable asset has been obtained, and this “invention” is a wonderfully vibrant example of that.

I am frequently asked if it is a good idea for inventors to file their own patent applications, and every time I am asked that question I suspect the person doing the asking already knows the answer, but is hoping that they might find someone who will tell them what they want to hear. You have probably seen the commercial where the guy is sitting at his kitchen table and is on the phone with the surgeon who is telling him where to cut to take out his appendix while using a butter knife. The guy asks: “shouldn’t you be doing this?” Well, writing your own patent application is a little like taking out your own appendix.

Earlier today I stumbled across US Patent No. 7,631,368, which is titled Combined concealed carry holster undergarment and outergarment with quick release and quick access mechanisms.  This patent is one that offers a number of lessons, both for inventors and for those who are seeking to reform the US patent process.  The lesson for inventors is a cautionary one; namely…

Dmitry Brant, a DC patent attorney at a top patent law firm, recently launched a new software product aimed at the patent market named Patent ClaimMaster.  Patent ClaimMaster is a Microsoft Word plugin that helps you improve the quality of your patent documents while reducing costs. With Patent ClaimMaster you can turn cumbersome and time consuming tasks into simple tasks…

On Monday, July 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (minus Judge Lourie who did not participate in the poll of judges) decided to rehear the claims and continuations rule challenge of Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline en banc.  Additionally, the CAFC has vacated the panel decision that awarded a victory to the USPTO.  The date of…

As soon as I learned that the date for requesting rehearing or en banc consideration of the Federal Circuit ruling in the GSK and Tafas appeal of the claims and continuations rules was pushed back to June 3, 2009, I said to myself, of course!  Important things always seem to pop up while I am on the road teaching the…