Posts Tagged: "inventor"

One thing that many individuals and professional inventors employed by corporations (i.e., “kept inventors”) have in common is that they frequently do not perceive what they have come up with as worth patenting. So many have the idea that a patent is something that gets awarded to breakthrough innovations, when in fact it is far more common to have a patent awarded to an improvement on an existing product. If you can improve upon something , there is already a market in existence for the underlying product and consumers will perceive your improvement as worth paying for then you very well may have a winning invention. Certainly, you are much farther along the path to success with that trifecta.

If (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment of a coffee cup and then subsequently another who did not derive independently comes up with and discloses a coffee cup with a lid. If (B) does more than relate to a personal grace-period the subsequent disclosure could not be used against the first to publish inventor as prior art because it relates to the same “subject matter.” That would mean that the inventor could incorporate the cup and the lid into his/her patent application and obtain claims. You might be tempted to say that is impossible, but if the cup with the lid is not prior art then under what rationale could an examiner issue a good rejection? This would lead to results that turn the patent system upside down, and was clear evidence to me that those arguing that 102(b)(1)(B) excluded out subsequent independently disclosed inventions was fanciful at best.

The canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth. Edison didn’t invent the light bulb; he found a bamboo fiber that worked better as a filament in the light bulb developed by Sawyer and Man, who in turn built on lighting work done by others. Bell filed for his telephone patent on the very same day as an independent inventor, Elisha Gray; the case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which filled an entire volume of U.S. Reports resolving the question of whether Bell could have a patent despite the fact that he hadn’t actually gotten the invention to work at the time he filed. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly at Kitty Hawk, but their plane didn’t work very well, and was quickly surpassed by aircraft built by Glenn Curtis and others – planes that the Wrights delayed by over a decade with patent lawsuits.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the designation of Iowa’s Davenport Public Library as a Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC). As the 81st library in the nationwide network, Davenport marks Iowa’s return to the PTRC program and serves as the first center geared away from the “paper depository” concept towards electronic access and training for patent and trademark information.

If you are a serious inventor you need to go to this Conference. Last year there were inventors who came to the USPTO campus for the two-day event from all over the East Coast, and those that I talked to thought it was well worth their time and money. Where else are you going to be able to meet Senior USPTO officials and talk to them one-on-one? There will be patent examiners and trademark examining attorneys present to answer your questions. Local intellectual property attorneys will give their time to participate in teaching sessions, as well as giving free consultations to attendees to answer questions. Even if you have to travel to California and stay in a hotel for a couple nights you will get far more out of the Conference than you will spend. I understand money is tight, but serious inventors, whether they are newbies or old pros, will gain a tremendous amount of valuable information and personal connections by attending the Conference.

In going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime mandated by the America Invents Act (AIA), much attention has been focused on the amorphous “grace period” provision provided to patent applicants for certain activities undertaken by them prior to filing for a U.S. patent. Much less attention was paid to the amendments made to sections 203(c)(2) and 203(c)(3) of the Bayh-Dole compliance obligations which were directly impacted by this change in definition from the old “statutory bar” provision (based on publication, on sale, or public use of the invention caused by the patent applicant), to this new “grace period” provision. But even more astounding (and unsettling) are the unrecognized consequences caused by the AIA in “realistically” meeting certain Bayh-Dole compliance obligations by going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime.

Simply stated, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and even early political and judicial leaders of the United States all envisioned the truth that one can legitimately be called an inventor even though they are not the first to invent. Unlike the many arguing in this debate I will actually prove this if you keep reading, which actual citation to cases and statutes. You see, when truth is on your side it is easy to come up with support for your argument. Sadly, those who want to challenge truth don’t provide citation to cases, they simply think that the passion of their beliefs ought to be enough to will their erroneous statements accurate.

In a bit of a twist this year, the party nominating the National Inventor of the Year will also be recognized. Most nominations come from patent attorneys, so this is a great way for the IPO to recognize the team behind the inventor, as well as honoring the inventor. The nomination deadline is June 1, 2011, so now is your chance attorneys and agents to nominate those inventors you work with for their innovative contributions. I can’t think of a more worthwhile endeavor for our industry than to recognize remarkable innovators, so I encourage everyone to go through their client rosters and nominate those outstanding inventors who deserve recognition.

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.

One of the problems created by true newbies, particularly those who have not done any reading or tried to at least bring themselves up to speed to some extent, is that they present in a way that makes established patent attorneys and law firms want to run and hide. Whether it is unrealistic expectations, wanting a confidentiality agreement signed because they want to be able to sue you if things go bad, or wanting representation on a contingency basis, these things scream PROBLEM to most patent attorneys, thereby foreclosing a possible representation relationship in many cases.

It generally takes a lot longer and costs a lot more to get an idea licensed. New ideas are hard to sell. The capable companies are not interested because they are generating their own ideas. The not-so-capable companies might be interested but would probably drop the ball. Most workers at these companies just want to make it through the day. An unfinished product looks more like work than an opportunity. It is also risky. Employees are not compensated for risks but are punished for failure.