Details:
Ex parte Toyomura
Appeal 2010000963; Appl No. 10/010,630; Tech. Center 2100
Decided: August 8, 2012
The application on appeal was directed to a memory card that handled different types of files by storing files in different format-specific directories, and by storing all files of non-supported formats in a separate directory. The application claimed priority to several Japanese applications.
As originally filed, claim 1 read:
1. Carryable memory media comprisingIn the first response, the Applicant amended. In doing so, "form" was changed to "format":
at least one directory for storing specific format files, which files have a certain predetermined form, and
a directory for storing non-specific format files, which files having any free form.
1. A memory media comprisingDuring prosecution, the Applicant further narrowed to overcome a § 101 rejection and to distinguish over the art:
a plurality of directories at a directory level, each of said directories limited to storing files of a respective one of a plurality of file formats, and
a further directory at said directory level, said further directory for storing files in other than said plurality of file formats.
1. A memory media for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, the memory media comprisingThe Examiner rejected several independent claims as being anticipated by Andro. By way of explanation, the Examiner noted that Andro stored all video files in a video subdirectory and all audio files in an audio subdirectory.
a plurality of directories at a directory level, each of said directories limited to storing files of a respective one of a plurality of file formats, so that not more than said respective one of said plurality of file formats are permitted to be stored in each of said directories and
a further directory at said directory level, said further directory for storing files in other than said plurality of file formats.
(Emphasis added)
The Applicant appealed. The argument in the Appeal Brief was basically about the meaning of "file format":
[T]his means that each one of the plurality of directories is limited to storing files having one format. Example directories are shown [in the schematic below]Then in the Reply Brief, the Applicant argued that the Examiner had confused the reference's file types with the claim's file formats:
Directory Level
---- doc
---- xls
---- xlm
--- other
As shown, a a first directory can only store .doc files. A second directory can only store .xls files. ...
Audio files, for example, have different formats. Exemplary formats include WAV files, MIDI files, WMA (Windows Media Audio) files, MP3 files, etc. Video files can also have different formats. Exemplary video files include Blu- ray, HD-DVD, MPEG3, MPEG4, etc. Appellants' claims are clear that each directory is limited to one format (e.g. MP3, MPEG4, etc.). Appellants' claim 1 does not claim that each directory is limited to one type of file (e.g. audio or video).The Board found that that Applicant's interpretation of "file format" was not supported by the specification. The Board noted that the very portion of the specification referred to in the Appeal Brief "Summary Claimed Subject Matter" read:
The directory group 8 for storing specific format files comprises a directory 6 for storing music files, a directory 7 for storing still image files and other directories (not shown).The Board found that the specification was "more consistent with the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed invention and contradictory to Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief." The Board therefore affirmed the rejection.
MP3 and the like files of music file format, for example, are stored in accordance with the directory 6 for storing music files in a corresponding data area. Exif and the like still image files are stored in accordance with the directory 7 for storing still image files in a corresponding data area. Meanwhile, no specific format files are stored in accordance with the directory 9 for storing non-specific format files in a corresponding data area.
(Emphasis added.)
My two cents: I've seen plenty of cases where the Board doesn't adopt a claim term interpretation urged by the Applicant. But usually it's one where the Applicant tries to narrow based on stuff in the spec, and the Board refuses to "import limitations from the spec." I don't think I've ever come across this scenario before, where the specification so fundamentally at odds with the Applicant's position on appeal.
Based solely on plain meaning, the Applicant's description of "format" sounds about right to me: file format is WAV, MP3, Blu-Ray, etc. whereas file type is video or audio.
Yet when I read paras. 44 and 45 of the specification (relied on by the Board), I lean the other way and think: multiple formats of audio files are stored in a single audio directory.
At first I wondered if the Applicant's spec should have done a better job of distinguishing between file types and file formats. I see some overlap in the terms, so I can kinda see where the Examiner is coming from.
But then I looked at FIG. 1 of the Applicant's spec:
I see no way to reconcile FIG. 1 of the originally filed spec with the schematic directory representation submitted by the Applicant in the brief:
Directory Level
---- doc
---- xls
--- xlm
--- other
Unless translation from Japanese to English caused the problem? After all, it was a translator who decided on the sentence "The directory group 8 for storing specific format files comprises a directory 6 for storing music files, a directory 7 for storing still image files and other directories (not shown). As is common with patent applications, the text in FIG. 1 corresponds almost exactly to that in the specification's description of FIG. 1.
That was the sole issue on appeal? What a waste. Surely further subdividing of the directories according to the particular standards is obvious, given that you've already subdivided according to media type?
ReplyDeleteKaren:
ReplyDeleteWhy did you write up a bad appeal? Make bad arguments = lose on appeal. Nothing particularly interesting or revealing about that. Knowing this certainly isn't going to help my practice.
While I'm at it, it would be helpful for you to more frequently discuss cases in which the Examiner was reversed. Personally, I'm far more interested in arguments that work.
IDK, JS, there is a little bit of "there but for the grace of God go I" schadenfreude that goes along with these types of posts that is not entirely unwelcome.
DeleteJust saying. :-)
ThomasPaine
June 20, 2013 at 9:04 AM
Delete"Wrong. Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions."
Shouldn't you and JS let everybody know (as if you haven't already) that you are just a coupla newbies? Shouldn't you do some kind of legal disclaimer, or something?
Just Saying.
Any time you want to answer any of the questions I posed to you in the previous topic, feel free. I'm not keeping track of the days since I asked them, but you inability to answer them hasn't gone unnoticed. Here's some new ones for you: did Rader follow CLS in his Ultramercial decision? Wasn't he bound to follow CLS by the court's own adopted rule? WTF is up with Lourie?
DeleteShould I start the clock?
"Should I start the clock?"
DeleteNo need. The legal disclaimer is implied.
June 20, 2013 at 9:04 AM -- Not Exactly On Point Pain pontificated:
Delete"Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions."
"Even if Leviton's reading of the import of that statement were correct, this would not be a direct conflict of panel opinions as is necessary to invoke this court's rule of precedence. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 765 [9 USPQ2d 1417] (Fed. Cir. 1998)."
__ General Protecht Group Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co. (Fed. Cir. 2011). __
"The court referred to the Scripps/Atlantic conflict, concluded that the earlier panel decision controlled under the Federal Circuit's rule, see Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Co., 864 F.2d 757, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“This court has adopted the rule that prior decisions of a panel of the court are binding precedent on subsequent panels unless and until overturned in banc.”),"
__ Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009). __
"[T]his court nonetheless has the rule that in the event of conflict between panels the earlier holding prevails until overturned en banc. Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Corp., 864 F.2d 757, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“This court has adopted the rule that prior decisions of a panel of the court are binding precedent on subsequent panels unless and until overturned in banc… . Where there is a direct conflict, the precedential decision is the first.”). If there is to be a change from this court's prior rulings, it must be done en banc."
__ Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008). __
"This court has adopted the rule that prior decisions of a panel of the court are binding precedent on subsequent panels unless and until overturned in banc. See UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652 n. 6, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 n. 6 (errata) (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1025, 108 S.Ct. 748, 98 L.Ed.2d 761 (1988). Where there is direct conflict, the precedential decision is the first."
__ Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1988). __
"the memory media comprising: a plurality of directories"
ReplyDelete112 1st enablement, no memory media has ever, or will ever comprise a plurality of directories, or even a directory.
112 1st enablement, no memory media has ever, or will ever comprise a plurality of directories, or even a directory.
DeleteSo very much like an Examiner -- all conclusion and no explanation.
Based upon the claims, I'm guessing a memory media refers to something like a hard drive, USB memory, or CD-ROM. Are you saying those will never comprise a plurality of directories?
"Are you saying those will never comprise a plurality of directories?"
DeleteI have seen a lot of Hard drives, USB memories, and CDROMS, I can even bring a lot into the office. Never once have I see one "comprising" a plurality of directories, or even a single directory. A directory is an abstract notion about what a group of 1's and 0's REPRESENT, or HOW THEY ARE USED, not what they ARE. Therefore the harddrive, USB drives, and CDs do not, themselves, comprise them. It is like saying a bicycle "comprises" Huffy when there is a symbol written on it that is interpretable as meaning "Huffy" (the brand) in english. No bicycle "comprises" Huffy the brand.
And just to be clear, I provide quite a bit of analysis if I feel like making a rejection. I just don't feel like breaking it down for every intertar d on every bogus case Karen drags up.
Oh 6 ... your fascination with the word "tard" gives you away. Do you get physical pleasure when using that word?
DeleteA directory is a manner of structuring data. You do notice how "structuring" has, as a root, "structure"? Moreover, directories are functional -- not quite the same as "Huffy" for a bicycle.
A directory is an abstract notion
Methinks you have no clue as to what the term "abstract" means.
SCOTUS has no notion what "abstract" means either, why should 6?
Delete"A directory is a manner of structuring data. "
DeleteAn abstract manner of structuring data. But that doesn't matter one whit either way. The abstract idea of "structuring up some data" in one form or another" is abstract no matter which way you "structured" up your data.
"You do notice how "structuring" has, as a root, "structure"? "
Yep, and it is being used here along the lines of one of its secondary meanings, not the meaning the word has in patent lawl dealing with the structure of objects.
Sorry broseefus, abstractions is what this case is all about. Doesn't matter what you want to "argue" it isn't going to change the fundamental nature of the subject matter. There are literally zero words that could come out of your mouth that could ever change the nature of this subject matter into not being abstract.
"Moreover, directories are functional -- not quite the same as "Huffy" for a bicycle."
So? Even presuming you're correct, this is 101, not your stu pid 103 exception to whatever doctrine or whatever.
Although, just for lols, what is the "function" of a "directory"? To sit there? To "organize" by way of sitting there?
And my bad, we're not even talking about 101 here, we're talking about that below and I was reading from bottom to top.
DeleteHere we're simply talking about whether or not it is even possible for a memory to "comprise" a directory. Which nothing in your statement even addresses. So never mind, I guess you simply have a penchant for spouting off irrelevant nonsense in re to other posts on different points.
"Methinks you have no clue as to what the term "abstract" means."
And I think (actually I now know, because I looked it up a week ago) the word abstract is literally in the definition of what a directory is, so I will defer to the experts that write those definitions.
"At first I wondered if the Applicant's spec should have done a better job of distinguishing between file types and file formats."
ReplyDeleteWhy bother? the whole thing is going up in a puff of 101 smoke.
"Why bother? the whole thing is going up in a puff of 101 smoke."
DeleteDoubtful. But keep trolling.
ThomasPaine
Why bother? the whole thing is going up in a puff of 101 smoke.
DeleteSee the above comment about all conclusion and no analysis.
The only "analysis" required is to read the claim and note what it is that they're trying to claim.
Delete" a plurality of directories at a directory level, each of said directories limited to storing files of a respective one of a plurality of file formats, so that not more than said respective one of said plurality of file formats are permitted to be stored in each of said directories and
a further directory at said directory level, said further directory for storing files in other than said plurality of file formats."
The abstract idea of having a first directory that will only hold one of a plurality of formats, and only that one, and having another directory in the same directory level as the first directory that will hold any format. All limited to the field of compooting.
I should add that the analysis above took all of 3 minutes. And this claim is done. And probably the whole app relating to this nonsense is done as well.
DeleteThe abstract idea of having a first directory that will only hold one of a plurality of formats, and only that one, and having another directory in the same directory level as the first directory that will hold any format.
DeleteSee above ... you don't understand the term "abstract." Perhaps you should have taken a few philosophy classes in college.
I should add that the analysis above took all of 3 minutes.
You mean the conclusory statement took only 3 minutes. I don't think you know what "analysis" is if it bit you in the toe.
BTW ... if that is all the "analysis" you are going to give us, don't bother next time. You would have been better served to say "I don't know" and we would have gotten the same result.
God created the heavens and the earth in six days, JS. It's now been ten. Got anything yet?
Delete"See above ... you don't understand the term "abstract." Perhaps you should have taken a few philosophy classes in college."
DeleteLulz, I think you mean that I understand it so much better than you do that you're left so far behind me that you can't seem to even catch a small glimpse as to what it is referring to in patent lawl.
"You mean the conclusory statement took only 3 minutes."
What conclusory statement tar d face? I stated an abstract idea, I noted it was preempt in the field of compooting. That's literally all that is required to take out this garbage.
God created the heavens and the earth in six days, JS. It's now been ten. Got anything yet?
DeleteWhat are you mumbling about?
I think you mean that I understand it so much better than you do that you're left so far behind me that you can't seem to even catch a small glimpse as to what it is referring to in patent lawl
So much better that your fellow Examiner failed to reject it under 101 and the PTAB failed to raise it as an issue on their own (as the PTAB is frequently wont to do).
I stated an abstract idea
You didn't.
I noted it was preempt in the field of compooting. That's literally all that is required to take out this garbage.
Good luck with that -- seriously, you'll need a lot of luck to get that even past the PTAB.
6 ... a legend in his own mind.
Now twelve days, JS.
DeleteReference A does it this way. Reference B does it this way. Same result. Both predictable. References tell you what happens. Right there in black and white. What more do you want, exactly?
Do not use the word articulated, rational, underpinning, or underpants. Give a concrete example of what more is needed to show that both results are predictable. Don't try to interpret the law. Just tell us what would work for you.
Take all the additional time you need.
"Just tell us what would work for you."
DeleteAnd don't forget the legal disclaimer.
Now twelve days, JS.
DeleteFirst ... if you used a name (any name) I could identify what you had previously written. Let me give you a hint: (1) Click the down arrow immediately below the box where you type, which opens up a drop down box; (2) select "Name/URL"; (3) type whatever name you want there under "Name" and then hit continue. It'll take you all of about 5-10 seconds.
Since I have no idea what post you are referring to, you'll have to repeat it. However, based upon your comments, I already see your problem ... "[s]ame result." Why replace one with the other when the result is the same?
Do not use the word articulated, rational, underpinning
I know -- Examiners do not like the langauge of Supreme Court cases cited to them.
Don't try to interpret the law. Just tell us what would work for you.
Explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have picked the various elements out of the various references and combined them in the manner that yields the claimed invention?
"Explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have picked the various elements out of the various references and combined them in the manner that yields the claimed invention?"
DeleteSee, that wasn't so hard. There was no need to feel intimidated. (Your legal disclaimer is implied.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen any one of the two alternatives because each is a known way to achieve the predictable (documented) result.
"So much better that your fellow Examiner failed to reject it under 101 and the PTAB failed to raise it as an issue on their own (as the PTAB is frequently wont to do)."
DeleteMy fellow examiner doesn't even know what the law is and furthermore, literally doesn't care. I just got done talking to one, and they noted exactly, in those words, that. They also like to ignore 112 entirely. New matter? This other guy I know in the compooter arts did his first one 2 years into his career. And he didn't really understand what was going on when he did it.
Worst examinerta rds ever. It's like they're bred specifically for examining compooter inventions. Bred to ignore 112, because otherwise all of their claims would light up like a lightbulb with 112 rejections. Bred to ignore 101, because all of their claims, and in fact 90% of all of their entire specifications would light up like a lightbulb with 101 rejections if put into a claim. Seriously, if they ever had to actually examine a real application most of the problems with the application would go completely unaddressed because they don't even know to look for them. All they do is look for art.
It is really kind of sad.
It is really kind of sad.
DeleteEverytime I read what you write, I feel the same about the USPTO's hiring standards.
All they do is look for art.
I've seen hundreds of applications examined in the "computer arts." A majority of them include at least one 101 rejection -- so much for you even having a clue. I see 112 rejections -- not often, but they aren't rare -- I traverse 95% of them without amending the claims (not counting antecedent basis issues).
"One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen any one of the two alternatives because each is a known way to achieve the predictable (documented) result."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them.
You really suck at this.
+1
Delete"Explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have picked the various elements out of the various references and combined them in the manner that yields the claimed invention."
DeleteSo, JS, that doesn't work for you after all. Care to amend your statement? Take all the time you need.
So, JS, that doesn't work for you after all. Care to amend your statement? Take all the time you need.
DeleteI read a lot of gibberish on the internet, and I can parse most garbage to find a meaning. However, you have me beat. Since you cannot pose a meaningful question (or follow simple directions to give yourself a name), I'm not going to bother ....
"I'm not going to bother ...."
DeleteDon't be embarrassed to ax for help.
We understand you to mean:
"Explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have picked the various elements out of the various references and combined them in the manner that yields the claimed invention, in a way that suits me, JS, to my complete satisfaction, in my sole discretion, notwithstanding common sense and SCOTUS precedents, even though I cannot give one concrete example of any explanation that would suit me, JS, in my sole discretion."
Anonymous
Or follow simple instructions & give yourself a name , , , ,
Deleteyour real name is Just Saying? your parents,like hippies?
just sayin'
your real name is Just Saying?
DeleteI didn't say give us your "real" name. Just like an Examiner -- make up facts to make a point.
Explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have picked the various elements out of the various references and combined them in the manner that yields the claimed invention, in a way that suits me, JS, to my complete satisfaction, in my sole discretion, notwithstanding common sense and SCOTUS precedents, even though I cannot give one concrete example of any explanation that would suit me, JS, in my sole discretion.
DeleteWhat is this besides a rambling sentence? Try to break down your thoughts one at a time and put a period (".") at the end of each one. If you want me to do requests, try not to do so muddily -- otherwise, I'll pass.
Since you're the only one who does not understand, I'll break it down and simplify just for you.
Delete"I cannot give one concrete example of any explanation that would suit me, JS, in my sole discretion." Period (".").
Anonymous
"Try to break down your thoughts one at a time and put a period (".") at the end of each one."
DeleteIF ONLY a patent claim had more than one period, JS might be able to understand one.
I cannot give one concrete example of any explanation that would suit me, JS, in my sole discretion.
ReplyDeleteWhat is this? A declaration? A question? A comment? And explain this to me, why should I be responding it?
IF ONLY a patent claim had more than one period, JS might be able to understand one.
Is that the best insult you could come up with?????
"And explain this to me, why should I be responding it?"
DeleteI thought you might like to defend your position, but whatever. Whatever works for you. Carry on. Never say die, or feign (???) ignorance. The strategies of "never say die" and "feign" (???) ignorance are the reasons we have appellate tribunals.
Unfortunately, you are reinforcing the other newbie's misunderstanding of the law in a way that can cause them career problems.
"Is that the best insult you could come up with?????"
No.
So, day 1 begins . . .
DeleteI thought you might like to defend your position
DeleteI do ... all time time at the PTO. I get paid a lot of money to do that ... I get nothing here but the pleasure of ripping apart your meager and twisted understanding of the law. Sometimes, I prefer the money.
"I thought you might like to defend your position."
Delete"I do ... all time time at the PTO."
And we're sure you're just as successful there, as here.
And we're sure you're just as successful there, as here.
DeleteI'll take a rough (conservative) guess of about 500-700 allowances -- although definitely a higher pace over the last few years.
I didn't know that a titular patent attorney had the authority to allow anything. Anyways, of the roughly 500-700 allowances, how many that issued as patents have been held not invalid? Just roughly.
Delete"I get paid a lot of money to do that."
DeleteShould take less than a minute. At a billable rate of $250/hr., that's about 4 dollars. I will send $5 in US currency to an address of your choosing when you provide a concrete example based on the following facts:
Reference A does it this way. Reference B does it this way. Same result. Both predictable. References tell you what happens. Right there in black and white. What more do you want, exactly?
Do not use the word articulated, rational, underpinning, or underpants. Don't try to interpret the law. Just tell us what would work for you.
Give a concrete and credible example of what more is needed to show that both results are predictable.
how many that issued as patents have been held not invalid
ReplyDeleteJust another example of an Examiner that doesn't understand the REAL world. As far as I know, none of my patents have ever been litigated. It is (extremely) rare for any issued patent to get litigated.
Another thing you probably don't know is that whether or not a patent is held invalid (or not) in a court frequently has little to do with the attorney prosecuting the application. Although 101 and 112 issues infrequently pop up, most of the time invalidity is based upon prior art. I (or any other attorney) have no control over the prior art that is out there that the Examiner could not find. FYI – I've seen an pro se applicant earn tens of millions of dollars on a portfolio that he mostly prosecuted himself. Most of the time, the value of the patent and its validity, is about the invention itself, not the attorney. You only need the attorney to deal with jack#$$ examiners and to not draft claims that completely suck.
At a billable rate of $250/hr.
I wouldn't take a leak in your coffee for $250/hr. You vastly underestimate what experienced patent attorneys make.
Reference A does it this way. Reference B does it this way. Same result. Both predictable. References tell you what happens. Right there in black and white. What more do you want, exactly?
This??? I thought we addressed this early. I want a rational underpinning (it’s from KSR so don't complain to me – complain to SCOTUS) for the combination – not the individual elements. Why should I modify A in view of B. Don't tell me that element Ba' of B provides XYZ benefit. If somebody bothered to include Ba' in B, there is a 99.9999% chance that Ba' provides some benefit.
Give a concrete and credible example of what more is needed to show that both results are predictable.
Rephrase … you are mixing up your concepts. The fact that both results are predictable says nothing about the obviousness of the combination.
FYI … what KSR stated was "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Did you notice that SCOTUS said "likely to be obvious" and not "per se obvious"? That fact that the combination of familiar elements yields predictable results does not necessarily establish that the combination is obvious. Moreover, this sentence is not some test created by SCOTUS within KSR … it was a policy statement.
Don't try to interpret the law. Just tell us what would work for you
Interpreting the law is what everybody does -- attorneys, examiner, the courts. Asking me not to interpret the law (again) shows that you are not ready for prime time.
. Anyways, of the roughly 500-700 allowances, how many that issued as patents have been held not invalid? Just roughly."
DeleteWow, what a long-winded, clueless, rambling way to say "zero."
And who asked anything about a "combination?" Read _before_ pontificating. An "experienced" or at least successful attorney would know that.
An attorney who cannot read. $250/hr. was generous.
Delete"rambling way to say zero."
DeleteSo, just an admission that none of the applications he handles are much important. Nothing wrong with that (unless you pretend to know something about the law).
Not one of the roughly 500-700 applications he was in the building with was not important enough to be enforced? I believe him, 100%.
DeleteNo, he's thinking. Just takes him a few days with the new concepts.
DeleteI do not share your optimism.
DeleteLeave him alone. This is why I hate patent law. There's so little tolerance for the developmentally challenged.
DeleteWow, what a long-winded, clueless, rambling way to say "zero."
ReplyDeleteIs that the best insult you can come up with? I'm trying to teach you something. Unfortunately, the lesson is way over your head – although I tried to dumb it down. I must admit, I must get better in dumbing down my explanations.
And who asked anything about a "combination?"
Let me quote 35 U.S.C. § 103 … "if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious." Did you notice the part about the claimed invention as a whole (i.e., the combination) and how it is the claimed invention as a whole that has to be obvious? I didn't think so. Before bemoaning my lack of reading comprehension, I suggest you read the statute.
Not one of the roughly 500-700 applications he was in the building with was not important enough to be enforced? I believe him, 100%
Wow … talk about reading comprehension failure. The question was asked about "patents have been held not invalid." A patent held not invalid is made by a court, which involves a litigation. However, you don't need a litigation to enforce your patents. Also, don't confuse lack of litigation with lack of value. I estimate that the patents I have worked on to have a value easily of about a couple hundred million dollars. Heck, there may be one or two that are worth a hundred million each. I know of one patent in particular that I think could be worth a couple hundred million of dollars. That kind of money, however, isn't obtained just by the asking – you need to go out and work for it.
Regardless, the point I made before, which is an important point, is that the validity of an issued patent rarely depends upon the attorney who obtained it.
Oh … and what is with this "was in the building with" statement? Even if I was in-house (which I'm not), it is unlikely I would be "in the building" of the invention.
This is why I hate patent law.
Don't come around anymore then … we won't miss you.
Lots more unfounded rambling. (But you do admit "zero.")
DeleteTry to focus.
Who asked about Section 103? Who asked about obviousness? Who asked about the "claimed invention as a whole?" Who asked about "the combination?"
Who asked about Section 103? Who asked about obviousness? Who asked about the "claimed invention as a whole?" Who asked about "the combination?"
ReplyDeleteMy bad ... I thought we were talking about patent law. Never mind.
But you do admit "zero."
I admitted to "[a]s far as I know, none" in the second sentence of my initial response. Trust me -- it is not on my "patent bucket list" and NONE of my clients care. Make it an issue all you want, but if you do, you don't understand the real world -- which is the point of the first sentence of my initial response.
If you want to talk patent law, I'm game. Until then, I've got real money to make.
"I thought we were talking about patent law."
ReplyDeleteWhy did you think that? You must live in a fascinating world. What color is the sky?
"If you want to talk patent law, I'm game. Until then, I've got real money to make."
Excellent!! So you're going for the five bucks!!!
Sixteen days. We'll see the example any time now.
DeleteI've already answered by not answering. Nothing more is needed to show that both results are predictable.
DeleteSo, why did it take sixteen days?
DeleteLike I said, educable, just a little slow.
DeleteAppellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.
Delete"just a little slow."
DeleteA little?
I have worked with the spark or genius. The spark of genius was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no spark of genius.
DeleteAppellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.
DeleteSo, suppose I had a widget and then I lost it. Could I still get a patent on it? Not a rhetorical question.
DeleteDo you even have a registration number yet? We need to talk.
DeleteI see the children have taken to stealing my name. The JS at 5:56PM and 1:00AM are not me.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder why many patent attorneys have very little respect for Examiners. I'm here to discuss patent law -- not play games with little children.
"I'm here to discuss patent law."
DeleteLearned anything yet?
If you really are an attorney, feel free to amend your earlier instructions:
"Just saying July 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM
First ... if you used a name (any name) I could identify what you had previously written. Let me give you a hint: (1) Click the down arrow immediately below the box where you type, which opens up a drop down box; (2) select "Name/URL"; (3) type whatever name you want there under "Name" and then hit continue. It'll take you all of about 5-10 seconds."
I don't know what's up. But that JS at 10:50 AM is not me.
DeleteAppellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.
Delete"that JS at 10:50 AM is not me."
DeleteWhatever. The JS at 5:56 PM (finally) got it right.
Another blog vandalized by children ... [sigh]
ReplyDeleteAppellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.
Delete