Interesting, thanks. I was already planning to write the claims and run them past my pal for his extra-subtle advice, just because it's otherwise hard to know whether the spec has everything necessary to support the claims, unless you throw in the kitchen sink.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Yes, certainly, but only if you have a millions of dollars to spend on the case (minimum). And then it usually trivially easy for them to get around your patent anyway.
A good guide here:
Dave.
That sounds about right to me!
Dave.
Then what does it mean?
In the deranged land of lawyers, it can mean anything.
Well, you can do the app in a way that it is not obvious (to even those that are highly skilled in the art) as to what critical part was left out. And your first statement does not logically parse; one part does not necessarily follow the other. Pray tell me at least one critical part that is missing in those write-ups. And if you can find more than one, state ALL of them...
Then it means that one's very possesion of an idea itself must be non-obvious. For example, my own idea would produce one quiet, smooooth, world's /fastest/ helicopter. And 15 years on, without the money or resources to go anywhere with it, I'm still keeping it a secret. This is great.
I think the usual argument goes -- if it were obvious, somebody would already be doing it! But that's standard fare.
There are literally dozens of ways to counter an examiner's position that your idea is obvious, or anticipated by the prior art. I won't list these, but you can find them in any good patent book. Like the Nolo Press books.
at
any
y,
ped
t -
Updating the thread...
The book is "Suing Big Blue", by Harry Greenspan. Available on Amazon:
The author is the uncle of an engineering friend and colleague of mine. (Which is how I know about the book.) I think this text precisely details the many negative consequences of chasing patents, alluded to in this thread. The story has a bittersweet ending, and in my opinion, is definitely worth reading.
A correction: The inventors ended up suing their lawyers for simultaneously representing Intel (not IBM) as I mentioned above. Although at the time, I believe Intel was partially owned by IBM.
-mpm
Synopsis here:
You are required to disclose your best implementation (best mode, IIRC) of the idea - at the time of application. Of course it can be developed further, after.
Yes.
The application must be made before (one-year window in the US) you receive "commercial gain" from the invention. "Commercial gain" could be an offer for sale, publication of a spec sheet of a device containing the invention, or even discussing the product with a customer. Not to mention that any delays in are a chance for your competition. If you're going to patent don't screw around. Get to the PO as soon as possible. Remember, it'll take them two or three years to get it out the door.
It's hard for me to explain (IANL), but essentially most inventions are obvious once you (more precisely, someone "skilled in the art") see(s) them. The fact that you (they) *didn't* is a good indication that it was non-obvious.
This is the Usenet. ;-)
^^^^^^
You haven't cited where they *must*, by law, draft a claim. A patent application without a claim isn't going to go very far. Though I didn't know that they would write *any* claims. I've only had them do the opposite. ;-)
te:
e u=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ^^^^^^
By another law (which I will have to look up) the USPTO examiners are required to follow the Manual I just mentioned, which contains the 707 reference. So, by the associative law of red tape and bueracracy, the Manual becomes law.
Anyhoo. I did gloss over one rather important nuance. You must write at least one claim yourself to perfect your application. The USPTO will not accept an application without Claims (non- provisional, anyway), even though they are required to write one for you (if your invention is patentable, and you meet certain other requirements, small entity, independent inventory without attorney representation, etc....
Still, one would never go this route unless all they wanted was a plaque to hang on the wall....
one: (928)428-4073
Or, evidently, Don's website. I stand corrected! :)
We've gleaned a lot from Don's website over the last couple years. I particualry like his analogy to playing the lottery!
Actually, Don, in a few weeks (after we file something at the FCC and it goes public), I'd really like to hear your thoughts on "far and wide" publication, as our device has a nifty little angle to it I think you might find very intriquing, as it relates to "built-in" infringement-abatement.
Please hang tight for a couple weeks. Thanks!
- mpm
There is considerable anecdotal evidence that hanging your patent on an east wall significantly reduces both the frequency and severity of walrus attacks.
Recent double blind studies in Nebraska have reinforced this premise.
As far as can be determined, this is the ONLY known benefit of patents to individuals and small scale startups.
I wouldn't know anything about walrus attacks (didn't even like the Beatles, much), but I do know that employers like them. ;-)
Rhose double blind studies must have been conducted in East Anglia. The placebo patent would have an effect within the test error bars, I would think. ;-)
Nonsense. This individual benefited to the tune of about $20K from his patents. Of course, it was paid by my employer who is not a small scale startup. ;-)
You keep saying that, Don, but it isn't true in general. For instance, venture capitalists are very concerned about IP issues, and patent protection especially.
I do agree that a great many people have one or two ideas that they're in love with, leading them to pour thousands of dollars down a rathole patenting them. Those folks often seem to wind up with very narrow patents that are easily avoided, which makes them of little value.
Patents are one sort of tool among many, and can help a lot when properly used, but they aren't a silver bullet.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required