Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "uspto"

At the IBM site (http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-microhist.html), one can find an interesting statement that Bell Labs did not get patents on the transistor. Although prior art by Lilienfeld did stop some applications of Bell Labs from going forward, both Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley did get patents, which were licensed to many companies, including TI and the predecessor of Sony. At all relevant times, Bell Labs, Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley knew, understood, and foresaw applications for the transistor beyond a use in hearing aids. The relevant text at ibm.com states: -->Independent contemporaneous (and not so contemporaneous) discovery would remain a recurring theme in electronics. So it was with the invention of the vacuum tube -- invented by Fleming, who was investigating the Effect named for and discovered by Edison; it was refined four years later by de Forest (but is now rumored to have been invented 20 years prior by Tesla). So it was with the transistor: Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen were awarded the Nobel Prize for turning de Forest's triode into a solid state device -- but they were not awarded a patent, because of 20-year-prior art by Lilienfeld. So it was with the integrated circuit (or IC) for which Jack Kilby was awarded a Nobel Prize, but which was contemporaneously developed by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor (who got the patent). And so it was, indeed, with the microprocessor. **The issued patents of Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley cite to the earlier work of Lilienfeld, which was considered by the USPTO in its decision to grant patents to the Bell Labs workers. **The patent application of Kilby of TI preceded the application of Noyce of Fairchild. Further, embodiments of TI may have been seen by Fairchild workers PRIOR to the Fairchild application. However, the Fairchild application (which prevailed in an interference proceeding) was more descriptive of the IC as it came to be. **Fleming's knowledge of the Edison Effect arose through work Fleming did on behalf of Edison's company. Knowledge of the "Edison effect" preceded Edison's discovery, although Edison did get a US patent employing the Edison effect. Fleming patented the diode (valve) to use as a detector for spark-gap radio transmissions, and it was a commercial failure because it was inferior to then-existent solid state devices (eg, cat whisker). Generic Viagra cheap cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: transistor, patent, labs, bell, shockley

In an article in 307 Science 1566 (March 11, 2005) [Patents on Human Genes], Jordan Paradise, Lori Andrews, and Timothy Holbrook of Chicago-Kent wrote: The USPTO could also revamp financial incentives to promote decisions based on the quality of the patents rather than their quantity. Currently, patent examiners are encouraged with monetary bonuses to grant patent applications, a policy that has the unsettling effect of rewarding examiners for quickly pushing patents through the patent office. Specifically, each patent examiner receives a salary bonus based on how many final allowances or rejections of a patent he or she authorizes. Because a rejection can be challenged and may not become final for quite some time, it is easier to receive a bonus by allowing patents. (citing to Merges, Berk Tech L J, 14, 577 (1999)). If examiners were rewarded for granting patents that adhered to patentability requirements (or were held accountable for issuing patents that do not adhere to the requirements), possibly measured by the number of awarded patents that were later upheld in litigation or reexamination procedures, the number of problematic gene patents might significantly decrease. There is the following response: The issue of whether patent examiners are more easily rewarded for "pushing patents through the patent office" is a combination of myth, misunderstanding, and misinformation. Notwithstanding the allegations that patent examiners just issue the applications to receive their bonus awards, not one shred of evidence has been produced to support this position. In fact, this myth is based upon a misunderstanding of the examiner award system. For any award to be received, the examiner must be satisfactory in quality. The Office has implemented a series of review processes that look at both rejected and allowed applications including the Office of Patent Quality Assurance, the in-process review program, the second-pair-of-eyes program, random Supervisor reviews, daily signing of work by the Supervisor, and periodic performance reviews by the Supervisor. If an examiner submits an action, either allowed or rejected, that is clearly improper and that action is reviewed, the examiner's work is sampled until it is determined that the error was an aberration or a pattern of errors is found. Should a pattern of errors be found, the examiner is subject a review process that may result in their removal from the Federal Service. Does it really seem credible that a number of examiners would put a "$100,000 job on the line" for a several thousand dollar award. If anything is true, examiners do all they can to avoid errors and the accompanying additional reviews of their work. Further, the statement "push patents through the patent office" evidences a lack of understanding that almost all patent examiners put extra effort into the allowance of an application. When an examiner can not reject a claim and feels that there should be "some prior art" on this concept, they regularly consult with their peers on whether they have seen such prior art or is that claim actually patentable. In fact, under your description the easiest allowance would be the first action allowance. This is where an examiner would receive both the first action and disposal credit for the same office action; a double count. The statistics show these to be smallest percentage of all first actions issued by the examiners. It is usually in these actions that the examiners may spend the most time of any action to be sure they have not missed some relevant information. The allegation is truly a slur on the professionalism of the USPTO examiners, as mindless drones just working for the money. Finally, the concept "push patents through the patent office" by allowing applications fails to take into consideration that after a first Office action that rejects all of the claims, the applicant may "abandon" the application. Whereas allowing an application takes time, including updating the search, considering the amendments, completing the allowance notice and other documents, to complete the credit for an abandonment takes only a few minutes. Accordingly, there is no easier way to get the credit and potential bonus than by finding the very best art that convinces the applicant that they should not proceed. Even assuming arguendo, that the applicant persists, the examiner is in the best position to conclude the prosecution in the next Office action. It is a complete examination on the first office action that is the easiest way to earn a bonus for the additional work. Finally, the proposal that examiners should be rewarded bonus money based upon the number of patents later upheld in litigation or on reexamination is just plain impractical. Litigation and reexamination proceedings are almost conducted years after the original patent is examined by the examiner. Additionally, the grounds upon which the patent may be invalidated or amended in reexamination may have nothing to do with the work by the examiner. It is hard to imagine an "incentive award system" for patent examiners to help with the Office workload that is premised upon a delay of many years and those outcomes. [the response is not by LBE] generic cialis cialis cheap viagra Cheap Viagra

Tags: patent, examiner, action, office, application

As a matter of ensuring support under 35 USC 112 P1 (written description), I file provisional applications with claims. As a philosophical matter, this exercise forces the inventor to think about what really is different in the present invention and write down the invention that the inventor possesses that did not exist before. Recently, I learned that some attorneys, particularly at universities, believe that filing provisionals without claims is preferable. For example, at http://www.yale.edu/ocr/invent_guidelines/provisionals.html, we have text by Howard M. Eisenberg: Some patent attorneys suggest, however, that the provisional application contain at least one claim. One reason for this is because the decision to file a continuation regular application is often made at the last moment, very close to the one year anniversary of the provisional application filing date. There is always the possibility that the applicant may neglect to add claims for the regular application. If the regular application is filed without any claims, it will not be entitled to a filing date. On the other hand, if the provisional application contains at least one claim, even if it is not a very good claim, the regular application will be entitled to its filing date. A set of new claims may always be added at some time in the future before the application is examined. [LBE note: filing a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a provisional application is probably best not viewed as filing a continuation application under 35 USC 120. The above paragraph is simply wrong.] Other patent attorneys believe that it is best to avoid having any claims in the provisional application. The reason for this is that usually any claim that exists in the provisional patent application will be changed when the application is filed as a regular, non-provisional application. There is concern that this changing of the claims when filing the regular application might be construed by a court as an amendment of the claims which, according to the recent ruling in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku, 187 F.3d 1381, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (2000), would severely limit the extent to which the claims could be broadened under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the issue has not yet been litigated in a court, it is not at all certain that changing the claims during the filing of a regular from a provisional application would indeed be considered an amendment that would limit the scope of the doctrine of equivalents. However, until the issue has been cleared up, I concur that provisional applications are best filed without claims. [LBE note: as of 2005, I don't believe anyone has ever asserted Festo estoppel because of a narrowing amendment between a nonprovisional and an earlier provisional. I doubt this will ever happen. "Claims" in a provisional are not claims presented for consideration to the USPTO and are never examined. How can one have narrowing for a reason related to patentability when the patentability of the initial "claim" is never assessed?] Does anyone believe filing a provisional without claims is preferable to one with claims? ****UPDATE. 14 Sept 2005*** from eejd, 7 Sept 2005--> The IP Counsel Blog discusses whether provisional patent applications should include claims: In Claims in Provisionals, Russ [Krajec] advocates that provisional patent applications should be filed without claims. Russ' reasoning is that provisional applications filed with claims can only have a negative effect in view of prosecution history estoppel. . . . I feel that it is prudent to include the broadest claims in the original application. If the validity of the patent is ever attacked, there is a record of the broadest claim in the application with the earliest filing date or priority date. At the risk of establishing a record for prosecution history estoppel, it is necessary to preserve a record for claim interpretation and to satisfy written description requirements. LBE note. Krajec's reasoning is not persuasive. Hard to believe there would be estoppel arising from a provisional. If the use of the word "claims" bothers anyone, have a numbered list preceded by "I disclose." In a case wherein a provisional comes into play, the PTO is looking for written description support for priority. They are not looking for estoppel on claims.

Tags: claim, application, provisional, filing, regular

Of the IBM plan for application disclosure, Andrew Charlesworth of vnunet writes in an article titled IBM tackles US patent chaos : One aspect of IBM's new patent procedure will be to publish innovations online that it plans to patent six months before filing. If IBM is planning to disclose patent applications on the internet six months before filing patent applications at the USPTO, that would be remarkable. Don't think it's true, though. The article also states: Currently, the PTO publishes patent applications for two months, 18 months after they have been filed. IPBiz notes that one can find anything that one wants on the internet. The vnunet article includes: "The centrepiece of this policy, and our actions to support it, is based on the principles that patent quality is a responsibility of the applicant," said Dr John Kelly, senior vice president for technology and intellectual property at IBM. "These principles are as relevant in emerging regions of the world as they are in more mature economies. "IBM is holding itself to a higher standard than any law requires because it is urgent that patent quality is improved, to stimulate innovation and provide greater clarity for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights." For more on grant rates and patent quality, see 88 JPTOS 726. buy cilais cheap cialis Cheap Viagra cialis

Tags: patent, ibm, application, months, article

During the second game of the World Series, Fox television commentators early-on pointed to discoloration at the base of Kenny Rogers' left thumb and raised the specter of a foreign substance. The commentators noted that St. Louis, which would be watching the Fox broadcast, would be all over this. Such does not seem to be the case. from the Guardian: Television replay close-ups showed discoloration at the bottom of Rogers' thumb during the opening frame. Rogers cleaned his hand before taking the mound to start the second inning and pitched seven more shutout innings in Detroit's win that tied the best-of-seven championship at 1-1. "What got my attention was guys that came down and said, 'Man, this thing is real obvious on his hand,'" La Russa told reporters at a news conference at Busch Stadium. "I didn't see it. But I did watch video of the other postseason games, so I had an idea of what it looked like, and I said, let's get rid of it and keep playing. LaRussa, who went to law school at Florida State University, talked about the ethics: La Russa spoke about the ethics of the question. "Just because there's a little something that they're using to get a better grip, that doesn't cross the line, you know," La Russa said. "There's a line that I think that defines the competition. "And you can sneak over the line, because we're all fighting for the edge. I always think, does it go to the point of abuse?" said La Russa, who holds a law degree. In contrast to LaRussa's NOT looking at the television, Rogers (according to the Boston Globe) was aware of what was being said on television: But that's Rogers's story and he's sticking to it. He also said he wiped his hand off because he saw on TV that they were talking about it, not because he was instructed to do so by plate umpire Alfonso Marquez. "I think once I wiped the mud off, the last seven innings were very good," Rogers said, "but I'm sure that will be lost in translation with everything." **** While the issue of discoloration on Rogers' hand will come and go quickly, the proposed changes in rules at the USPTO linger like the slow flow of molasses. A hit came up on news.google on Oct. 24 that began: In an effort to streamline the patenting process, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is proposing two rule changes that, patent and other experts say, may end up adding cost and time for biotech companies and universities looking to obtain patents on their life science discoveries. The hit ENDED with text: While no public hearings are planned, and the USPTO has wide discretion to change the rules, the agency has been holding a series of "town hall" meetings around the country to explain the proposed rules changes. Additionally, those interested in submitting comments to USPTO can do so by mail until May 3, 2006 . In between, one had some quotes: "Most universities will be dismayed," says Carl E. Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the tech transfer office of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "At universities, even more so than startup biotech companies, the technology that comes off the bench is very early-stage, and often you need several continuations to understand what the invention is and its full breadth," says Gulbrandsen. Doll rejects this logic. "I have absolutely no sympathy for that because when you file an application, that invention is supposed to be complete," he says. "We are being reasonable, [the refiling process has] been a burden on the examiners." But, he continues, if applicants really do need more continuations "and can show a good and sufficient need, we will grant them." However, says Nancy J. Linck, deputy general counsel for intellectual property and trade at the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade association in Washington, DC, the biotech industry relies on continuation practice. "This [proposed] requirement just puts an increased burden on them." The URL is http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23177/ See also 88 JPTOS 743 (Sept. 2006). **UPDATE on Oct. 27** Jeff Ferguson wrote: For the first inning Sunday night, Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers had what looked to be a foreign substance Generic Viagra cialis cheap viagra generic viagra online

Tags: rogers, rule, television, uspto, inning

After losing on invalidity at the ITC, Qualcomm has filed a re-examination request at the USPTO. Reuters noted: Qualcomm Inc. on Oct. 26 said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Oct. 20 decided to rexamine the validity of one of the patents Broadcom Corp. has asserted against it in the International Trade Commission [ITC]. On Oct. 10, the Administrative Law Judge had determined that Qualcomm does not infringe this patent but also concluded that the patent was not invalid , the company said in a statement. cheap generic cialis buy cheap cialis Generic Viagra

Tags:

Sun setting on nanotechnology patents??? Jon Van of the Chicago Tribune, in an article Slow patent process hurts nanotech progress; Financial backers wary of 4-year filing period presents the quote: "The impact is one of perception. When you don't get a response from a patent application filing, you don't know what else is going on." There is also text: Bruce Kisliuk, director of a patent examining group at the patent office, said the agency does face a growing backlog across all areas. "We have 700,000 applications in the pipeline," Kisliuk said. "Some are for nanotech, some not. This backlog isn't unique to nanotech." Last year, the office issued fewer patents than usual because of an initiative to improve patent quality, Kisliuk said. Note the following text about the hiring of examiners: After years of being starved for resources, the office, which has had around 4,000 examiners, hired 1,200 new ones, bringing its total strength to nearly 4,800 examiners. Another 1,200 are due to be hired this year, he said. IPBiz notes that 4,000 + 1,200 = 5,200, not "nearly 4,800." See also an earlier IPBiz post on problems of employee retention at the USPTO: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/08/examiner-hiring-and-retention-at-uspto.html Separately, recall the numerous patents in the area of buckyballs and fullerenes which issued in the 1990's and went no where. cialis generic viagra online buy cilais viagra

Tags: