Posts Tagged: "prior art"

I have not previously noticed AOP doing Studies relative to foreign patents, but the hunt for prior art knows no boundaries and it seems only logical that some outside the United States would want to tap into the AOP network of researchers for prior art relative to non-U.S. patents. In the case of EP808484, the technology relates to online gaming and virtual worlds. The purpose of the invention is to provide a system for modeling a virtual body within a virtual environment, and controlling the movements of the virtual body in response to user body movement while providing acceptable level of realism.

So what is going on with these research Studies that seek only U.S. patents? It would seem that based on the specific details of some of these research assignments there are a growing number of entities using the AOP network to search for patents that might be able to be acquired for some strategic purpose. If that is what is going on it would be a creative way to use the AOP network of researchers to identify patents and/or patent portfolios. It also means that if you are a patent searcher and you are not frequently perusing ongoing AOP Studies you are missing an opportunity.

On May 22, 2012, STEC IP brought separate patent infringement lawsuits against Apple, Amazon and Oracle. Little information about STEC IP seems available. In the complaints filed they explain only that they are a Delaware limited liability company having a principle place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina. Under Delaware law Members of the LLC (i.e., owners) may remain anonymous, therefore, those who are behind STEC IP may remain a mystery. Of course, it is known that STEC IP is being represented by Richard Kirk of Bayard and Mark Hogge of SNR Denton, both of whom are listed as attorneys for STEC IP in the respective filings. Each of the patents asserted by STEC IP are now undergoing review by the Article One Partner’s research community.

U.S. Patent No. 6,757,068, which relates to what is described as a sourceless tracking system. See AOP Patent Study DEV-1754. The claims of this patent are extremely broad and suffer from defects not associated with prior art. A patent like the ‘068 patent is cat-nip to the anti-patent community and an all too familiar illustration that the Patent Office makes mistakes. Claim 1 is an example of something that would be deemed inappropriate on the patent bar examination because it is horribly disjointed. It should have received a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2d paragraph.

If you mix water fun with amusement park your mind wanders towards a water park no doubt. But did you know that there is patented technology in some of those water parks across the United States? The ‘537 patent relates to an annular-shaped waterslide bowl for use as an element of a waterslide. The bowl serves to slow a rider down and bring him or her to a stop at the end of the waterslide ride. The bowl has a wall with a rider entry port through which a rider slides from a flume into the bowl. The bottom wall of the bowl has an opening at its center and a low circumferential wall around the opening extends upwardly from the bottom wall. The rider comes to a stop in the bowl and can step over the circumferential wall into the opening. A staircase located within the opening provides means for the rider to exit the bowl. The waterslide bowl provides a compact structure for slowing and stopping the rider and is particularly suitable for waterslide installations having limited space.

Article One Partners, the world’s largest patent research community, has several interesting patent search projects ongoing at the moment. But there is no doubt that looking for prior art can be a little like looking for a needle in a haystack. The Article One approach, therefore, is to tap into a global community of researchers.

For well over a year I have been explaining that under the US first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, but that the grace-period is personal and relates only to the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor. Disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention will be used against the inventor. Now that the USPTO has come out with examination guidelines we find out the truth. I was right all along.

This new final rule eliminates 37 CFR 1.99, which provided for third-party submissions of patents, published patent applications, or printed publications in published patent applications, but did not permit an accompanying concise description of the relevance of each submitted document and limited the time period for such submissions to up to two months after the date of the patent application publication or the mailing of a notice of allowance, whichever is earlier.

When approaching an obviousness determination it is essential to understand what makes the invention unique. It is also necessary to start to envision the arguments that can be made to distinguish the invention over the totality of the prior art. This is required because when a patent examiner deals with issues of obviousness they will look at a variety of references and pull one element from one reference and another element of the invention from another reference. Ultimately the patent examiner will see if they can find all the pieces, parts and functionality of the invention in the prior art, and indicating that a combination of the prior art references discloses your invention. There is more to it than just finding every piece and part, because on some level all inventions are made up of known pieces, parts and functionality. The true inquiry is to determine whether the combination of the pieces, parts and functionality found within the applicable technology field of the invention would be considered to be within the “common sense” of one of skill in the art such that the invention is merely a trivial rearrangement of what is already known to exist.

Recently, I was working on a patent search requiring me to look in areas of patent art relating to male underclothing (a very popular area for patenting, as you may guess) when I came across this little number: US Patent Application 12/071,878, which is titled “Scrotal Support Garment.” This application serves as a great example of rejection through non-patent literature. When you apply for a patent, the examiner can use any information available to the public to reject your application – not just patents. In this case, the examiner had an easy time finding a picture of Borat in the swimwear and was gracious enough to include several pictures in the rejection.

Article One Partners (AOP), the world’s largest patent research community, earlier today announced that the company has achieved a significant milestone — more than $2 million dollars in financial incentives to its global research community. This milestone comes 11 months to the day from when Article One announced that they had reached the $1 million award milestone.

I have found it helpful to think about patent classifications as being large buckets with subclassifications being little buckets within the larger classification buckets. There are currently more than 450 classifications and over 150,000 subclasses. According to the USPTO, “A class generally delineates one technology from another. A Subclass delineates processes, structural features, and functional features of subject matter encompassed with the scope of the class.” It is also important to realize that although every patent has only one primary classification (class and subclass) it may include others as applicable to the patent.

The doctrines of “secret prior art” and “inherency” both merged in the case Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP to surprise, and unpleasantly upend the patentee. Judge Linn’s opinion ruled that “[a]n inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.” Relying upon the collective holdings in Dow Chemical, Mycogen Plant Science, and Invitrogen, the Federal Circuit panel then concluded that “it is apparent that the district court correctly entered summary judgment” of invalidity of the asserted claims in the ‘502 patent under 35 § 102(g)(2).

Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability of legislative history and the truly scary prospect of trying to get inside the head of Members of Congress, it seems fairly clear to me that the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2012, contains at least a handful of things that can only be characterized as unintended consequences. Among them are: (1) U.S. patents issued from foreign filings will be prior art as of the foreign filing date; (2) commonly owned patent applications cannot be used against each other for novelty purposes; and (3) the creation of an post grant challenge limbo because of the delay in initiating post-grant review procedures.