tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post2826518722790643192..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board finds that specification contradicts interpretation of "file formats" argued by ApplicantKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-11239081865792974572013-07-07T00:11:26.451-04:002013-07-07T00:11:26.451-04:00Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier pa...Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.ThomasPainenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-5349891333346600122013-07-06T21:59:56.976-04:002013-07-06T21:59:56.976-04:00Another blog vandalized by children ... [sigh]Another blog vandalized by children ... [sigh]Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-82190842770567976662013-07-06T12:06:12.311-04:002013-07-06T12:06:12.311-04:00"that JS at 10:50 AM is not me."
Whatev..."that JS at 10:50 AM is not me."<br /><br />Whatever. The JS at 5:56 PM (finally) got it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-37221171641461357192013-07-06T11:33:25.160-04:002013-07-06T11:33:25.160-04:00Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier pa...Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.ThomasPainenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-36419002722824878932013-07-06T11:32:34.314-04:002013-07-06T11:32:34.314-04:00I don't know what's up. But that JS at 10...I don't know what's up. But that JS at 10:50 AM is not me.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-56636985841821742132013-07-06T11:31:34.184-04:002013-07-06T11:31:34.184-04:00"I'm here to discuss patent law."
L..."I'm here to discuss patent law."<br /><br />Learned anything yet?<br /><br />If you really are an attorney, feel free to amend your earlier instructions:<br /><br />"Just saying July 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-49941300934725910942013-07-06T10:50:25.228-04:002013-07-06T10:50:25.228-04:00I see the children have taken to stealing my name....I see the children have taken to stealing my name. The JS at 5:56PM and 1:00AM are not me.<br /><br />No wonder why many patent attorneys have very little respect for Examiners. I'm here to discuss patent law -- not play games with little children.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-79479154001066593532013-07-06T01:16:45.149-04:002013-07-06T01:16:45.149-04:00Do you even have a registration number yet? We ne...Do you even have a registration number yet? We need to talk.<br />T. Jeffersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-42831464718538914362013-07-06T01:00:58.962-04:002013-07-06T01:00:58.962-04:00So, suppose I had a widget and then I lost it. Co...So, suppose I had a widget and then I lost it. Could I still get a patent on it? Not a rhetorical question.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-81023010827744307562013-07-06T00:45:24.838-04:002013-07-06T00:45:24.838-04:00Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier pa...Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.ThomasPainenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-53403371736270179812013-07-06T00:43:12.421-04:002013-07-06T00:43:12.421-04:00I have worked with the spark or genius. The spark...I have worked with the spark or genius. The spark of genius was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no spark of genius.A. Lincolnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-86340770385071551622013-07-06T00:39:57.010-04:002013-07-06T00:39:57.010-04:00"just a little slow."
A little?"just a little slow."<br /><br />A little?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41834692302418362362013-07-06T00:35:42.781-04:002013-07-06T00:35:42.781-04:00Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier pa...Appellate court panels are not bound by earlier panel decisions.ThomasPainenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-67550808676227066642013-07-05T22:15:17.750-04:002013-07-05T22:15:17.750-04:00Like I said, educable, just a little slow.Like I said, educable, just a little slow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-52929056053219796792013-07-05T21:47:34.352-04:002013-07-05T21:47:34.352-04:00So, why did it take sixteen days?So, why did it take sixteen days?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-91189684002025613752013-07-05T17:56:48.145-04:002013-07-05T17:56:48.145-04:00I've already answered by not answering. Nothi...I've already answered by not answering. Nothing more is needed to show that both results are predictable. Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3993272200731286202013-07-05T16:26:35.423-04:002013-07-05T16:26:35.423-04:00Sixteen days. We'll see the example any time ...Sixteen days. We'll see the example any time now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-53199509341182559862013-07-05T15:46:34.037-04:002013-07-05T15:46:34.037-04:00"I thought we were talking about patent law.&..."I thought we were talking about patent law."<br /><br />Why did you think that? You must live in a fascinating world. What color is the sky?<br /><br />"If you want to talk patent law, I'm game. Until then, I've got real money to make."<br /><br />Excellent!! So you're going for the five bucks!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-22763437282811596642013-07-05T15:32:03.535-04:002013-07-05T15:32:03.535-04:00Who asked about Section 103? Who asked about obvio...<i>Who asked about Section 103? Who asked about obviousness? Who asked about the "claimed invention as a whole?" Who asked about "the combination?"</i><br />My bad ... I thought we were talking about patent law. Never mind.<br /><br /><i>But you do admit "zero."</i><br />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.<br /><br />If you want to talk patent law, I'm game. Until then, I've got real money to make.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-88095841623416766172013-07-05T14:45:25.495-04:002013-07-05T14:45:25.495-04:00Lots more unfounded rambling. (But you do admit &q...Lots more unfounded rambling. (But you do admit "zero.")<br /><br />Try to focus.<br /><br />Who asked about Section 103? Who asked about obviousness? Who asked about the "claimed invention as a whole?" Who asked about "the combination?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-14554444195871871242013-07-05T13:04:59.530-04:002013-07-05T13:04:59.530-04:00Wow, what a long-winded, clueless, rambling way to...<i>Wow, what a long-winded, clueless, rambling way to say "zero."</i><br />Is 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.<br /><br /><i>And who asked anything about a "combination?"</i><br />Let me quote 35 U.S.C. § 103 … "if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the <i>claimed invention as a whole</i> 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 <i>read the statute.</i><br /><br /><i>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%</i><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>This is why I hate patent law.</i><br />Don't come around anymore then … we won't miss you.<br />Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-86493609376558384652013-07-05T01:28:39.374-04:002013-07-05T01:28:39.374-04:00Leave him alone. This is why I hate patent law. ...Leave him alone. This is why I hate patent law. There's so little tolerance for the developmentally challenged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-82981519361868636882013-07-05T01:18:53.771-04:002013-07-05T01:18:53.771-04:00I do not share your optimism.I do not share your optimism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-78187385891135894002013-07-05T01:13:37.006-04:002013-07-05T01:13:37.006-04:00No, he's thinking. Just takes him a few days w...No, he's thinking. Just takes him a few days with the new concepts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-48267613495065262002013-07-05T01:05:59.511-04:002013-07-05T01:05:59.511-04:00Not one of the roughly 500-700 applications he was...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%.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com