tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post4063359705873836050..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Federal Circuit reverses BPAI finding of analogous art (In re Klein)Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-7036425255037618202011-06-15T17:31:43.162-04:002011-06-15T17:31:43.162-04:00Lulz you fools, that wasn't me submitting that...Lulz you fools, that wasn't me submitting that reference above.<br /><br />6Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-31086782514615878502011-06-15T16:33:35.755-04:002011-06-15T16:33:35.755-04:00"Still there's got to be something like t..."Still there's got to be something like the above reference that beats his date"<br /><br />Here's an idea: why don't you review the prosecution hisotry of 2003/0192911 and see if there is anything better that beats Arnie's priority.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Your future SPEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-39157994064876115832011-06-15T16:05:13.321-04:002011-06-15T16:05:13.321-04:00"Looks like we'd better hold off on that ..."Looks like we'd better hold off on that transfer."<br /><br />LMAO -- 6 strikes again and epitomizes the quality of examination we get at the USPTO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-59306279803780378042011-06-15T15:10:04.193-04:002011-06-15T15:10:04.193-04:00"Whoops didn't see Arnie's priority g..."Whoops didn't see Arnie's priority goes back to 2001. Still there's got to be something like the above reference that beats his date"<br /><br />Looks like we'd better hold off on that transfer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-22688250373056148612011-06-15T13:09:07.663-04:002011-06-15T13:09:07.663-04:00Whoops didn't see Arnie's priority goes ba...Whoops didn't see Arnie's priority goes back to 2001. Still there's got to be something like the above reference that beats his dateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-54811426039932755832011-06-15T13:01:24.735-04:002011-06-15T13:01:24.735-04:00Apparently I need to transfer to whatever AU exami...Apparently I need to transfer to whatever AU examines this type of case.<br /><br />Here's a MUCH stronger primary reference:<br />2003/0192911<br /><br />A few excerpts:<br />[0003] Often it is necessary or desirable to mix two fluids in specific ratios <br />by volume (referred to hereafter as the "mixing ratios").<br /><br />[Abstract]<br />Some embodiments of the present invention employ a container having first and <br />second chambers for receiving first and second fluids, respectively. <br />Preferably, the first and second chambers are separated by a divider. The <br />divider can be movable, removable, or can otherwise be opened to selectively <br />connect and separate the first and second chambers. In this manner, first and <br />second fluids can be inserted into respective chambers, after which time the <br />divider can be moved to mix the first and second fluids. Preferably, the <br />divider can be positioned to seal one chamber from the other to keep fluids in <br />the chambers separate from one another. The first and second chambers are <br />preferably shaped and sized to enable a user to mix the first and second fluids <br />in a desired mixing ratio by at least partially filling the chambers with the <br />fluids to a common level. <br /><br />[0024] The term "fluid" is used herein and in the appended claims, and is <br />intended to include any substance that is a liquid, gas, or other flowable <br />substance. The term "fluid" therefore includes any solid in flowable form, <br />such as granular or powder material.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-2263347291105683742011-06-15T12:47:14.080-04:002011-06-15T12:47:14.080-04:00>title of this entry be "Federal Circuit
...>title of this entry be "Federal Circuit <br />>reverses BPAI finding of analogous art<br /><br />Yep. Fixed. Thanks.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-74551586038961622382011-06-15T12:19:53.709-04:002011-06-15T12:19:53.709-04:00I'm confused. Shouldn't the title of this...I'm confused. Shouldn't the title of this entry be "Federal Circuit reverses BPAI finding of analogous art" instead of "Federal Circuit reverses BPAI finding of non-analogous art"?Robert K Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-35395731455844971032011-06-15T11:44:11.105-04:002011-06-15T11:44:11.105-04:00"The Board didn't do any claim constructi..."The Board didn't do any claim construction."<br /><br />And neither will an Examiner....unless it's to give the broadest possible interpretation as opposed to the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the spec.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-43707922374164904162011-06-15T09:24:23.462-04:002011-06-15T09:24:23.462-04:00>Would the structural similarity argument
>...>Would the structural similarity argument <br />>have worked in the Board's favor <br /><br />ie, is the field of the reference the same as the field of the invention using the In re Bigio test for "same field"? <br /><br />You have to do claim construction first. <br /><br />What is "a container that is adapted to receive water"? What is the "receiving means"? What is "a compartment"? What is "adapted to receive sugar" ? Does the "wherein removal" clause get any patentable weight, or is it intended use? <br /><br />Only then can you decide whether these elements are structurally similar to the elements in each reference. The Board didn't do any claim construction.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-23802952044944623992011-06-15T07:26:16.185-04:002011-06-15T07:26:16.185-04:00Would the structural similarity argument have work...Would the structural similarity argument have worked in the Board's favor in the present case?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-68430917083167054022011-06-14T12:19:12.259-04:002011-06-14T12:19:12.259-04:00In re Bigio is directly mentioned in MPEP 2141.01(...In re Bigio is directly mentioned in MPEP 2141.01(a) (Analogous and Nonanalogous Art) as follows:<br />"See also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent application claimed a "hair brush" having a specific bristle configuration. The Board affirmed the examiner's rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of prior art patents disclosing toothbrushes. 381 F.3d at 1323, 72 USPQ2d at 1210. The applicant disputed that the patent references constituted analogous art. On appeal, the court upheld the Board's interpretation of the claim term "hair brush" to encompass any brush that may be used for any bodily hair, including facial hair. 381 F.3d at 1323-24, 72 USPQ2d at 1211. With this claim interpretation, the court applied the "field of endeavor test" for analogous art and determined that the references were within the field of applicant's endeavor and hence was analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrush could be used to brush facial hair. 381 F.3d at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212."<br /><br />However, Examiners still ignore it. But again, even with the test, Examiners still make these overly broad generalizations so as to try to encompass the Applicant's field of endeaver and the references the Examiner came up with. You can respond by point out the lack of structural similarity between the Applicant's claimed invention and the "prior art" but the Examiner simply blows this off and re-iterates that they are both within the same field of endeavor and/or directed to solving the same problem to which the Applicant's device was directed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89672736848976141352011-06-14T07:43:55.078-04:002011-06-14T07:43:55.078-04:00In re Bigio talks about how to meet the field of e...In re Bigio talks about how to meet the field of endeavor test.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-71381368740865375912011-06-14T05:20:36.759-04:002011-06-14T05:20:36.759-04:00As pointed out, one prong of the test is whether t...As pointed out, one prong of the test is whether the reference is in the APPLICANT'S field of endeavor. However, Examiners frequently avoid dealing with the field of endeavor as defined by the Applicant itself and instead, the Examiner tries to define the field of endeavor as broadly/generically as possible so as to encompass both the Applicant's invention and the references chosen by the Examiner. The MPEP provides some good guidance for the Examiners but they usually ignore it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-40629547734653688502011-06-14T01:17:25.463-04:002011-06-14T01:17:25.463-04:00The analogous art test lives!!!!!The analogous art test lives!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com