USPTO Director Kappos Launches Blog.
Per this press release today at the USPTO:
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos today launched a blog to foster a direct dialogue with the USPTO’s stakeholders and the general public.
“It’s important for me to be able to hear directly from the IP community, and that is why we are establishing this open channel for sustained dialogue and the exchange of ideas,” said Kappos. “I hope that the public will find this blog to be a useful vehicle for providing input to me directly and giving us the feedback we need to be able to better serve our constituents and the American people. I am looking forward to hearing from all segments of the IP community and encourage you to share your ideas and concerns with me on an ongoing basis.”
Kappos’ first post marks his first 90 days in office and focuses on his participation in the agency’s 14th Annual Independent Inventors Conference held at the USPTO last week. The post highlights key accomplishments and initiatives specifically geared toward assisting small entity inventors. Mr. Kappos also addresses areas of the proposed patent reform legislation that are of particular concern to this group.
The new blog is part of an extensive effort to reach out to the IP community and actively engage USPTO stakeholders in an effort help to the agency better serve the American public.
The blog is available via the USPTO home page and at www.uspto.gov/blog.
Bilski v. Kappos: Notable Quotes from the Oral Arguments.
The link to the transcript for the November 9th oral arguments before the SCOTUS in Bilski v. Kappos can be found here.
Per usual, we will preface our thoughts with the following disclaimer: “It is generally a futile effort to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on any given issue.” That being said, below are some quotes that we found of particular interest:
Scheduled SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Bilski v. Kappos – November 9, 2009.
Oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos are scheduled for today, November 9, 2009. Previous AT! coverage of Bilski here, here, here, and here.
In short, the CAFC in Bilski has held that business methods are not patentable unless they satisfy the machine-or-transformation test. In other words, patentable business methods must either: 1) transform matter into a different state or thing, or 2) be tied to particular machine. The Bilski decision expressly held inadequate the 1998 ruling in State Street Bank, which had established that business methods were patentable if they produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible result”.
The questions presented in the petition for U.S. Supreme Court review were:
1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
2. Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.
Further details on Bilski v. Kappos may be found via the SCOTUS Wiki here. A transcript of the oral arguments will follow, as soon as available.
They Invented What? (No. 152)
U.S. Pat. No. 5,878,931: Halloween backpack.
JMW Note: Wishing all a Happy and Safe Halloween 2009!
What is claimed is:
1. A Halloween backpack for a child comprising:
a hollow container having an outer surface, said hollow container adapted to be worn as a backpack on the back of a child,
means for releasable mounting of said hollow container on said back of said child,
a hollow chute mounted onto said hollow container, said chute defining a passageway along said chute between a frontal chute opening in said chute and an aperture into said hollow container thereby forming a cooperating passageway between said frontal opening and a holding cavity in said hollow container, said chute opening, said passageway, and said aperture sized to accept Halloween treats said chute being formed of a shape retaining material such that the shape of said frontal chute opening remains constant,
said chute extending upwardly of said hollow container so as to extend above a shoulder of said child when said child is wearing said hollow container as a backpack,
said chute shaped to present said frontal chute opening for access from a frontal position facing the front of said child whereby a Halloween treat may be deposited into said hollow chute from said frontal position or by said child.
They Invented What? (No. 151)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,828,531: Synthetic eye simulating eyeball movement.
I claim:
1. An artificial eye which when mounted on the head of a toy figure appears to follow an observer as he changes his angular orientation with respect to the eye, said eye comprising:
A. a transparent case having a generally spherical form, so mounted on the head of the figure as to expose its convex frontal section and to conceal its rear section;
B. a spherial ball mounted concentrically at a fixed position within the case and having a distinctive color; and
C. an opaque mask covering at least a portion of the case and provided at the convex frontal section of the case with a window that exposes the ball as well as the regions above and below and on either side of the ball, whereby an observer viewing the artificial eye through the window in a direction normal thereto in alignment with the ball center then sees the ball in its centered position; but as the observer moves relative to the figure and changes his orientation to view the eye through the window in a direction at an angle to the alignment direction, then the ball appears to be displaced from its centered position upwardly or downwardly or to one side thereof to an extent that depends on the angle of view, thereby giving the optical impression that the ball is following the observer’s movement.
New USPTO Website (No Longer Beta!)
As we had earlier reported, the USPTO had been working on a beta version of a new USPTO web site. Well, as of today, the new website has gone live. (See www.uspto.gov).
According to the USPTO, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) had been working to incorporate comments and feedback from internal and external users on the beta version, in order to make the website more user-friendly. The website has also been organized based on tasks that visitors perform on a regular basis.
Having used the beta version of the USPTO website a number of times, we agree that the new website offers a simpler and cleaner design, which should significantly improve navigation by visitors and functionality. We applaud the USPTO for making these much-needed improvements.
They Invented What? (No. 150)
U.S. Pat. No. 3,677,263: Portable bath capsule.
I claim:
1. A capsule for administering bed baths, comprising;
an elongated sheath of strong, flexible, fluid tight material dimensioned to accomodate and completely enclose the entire body of the patient excepting the head;
said sheath having a neck opening capable of being closed reasonably tightly about the neck of the patient;
said sheath having a elongated opening dimensioned to admit the body of the patient and said elongated opening having means for fluid tight closure thereof; and
means for admitting fluid to and draining fluid from said capsule;
said sheath having a plurality of layers with air spaces defined therebetween for heat insulation.
“Patentable Subject Matter After the Bilski Oral Argument” Webcast – November 19, 2009.
The American University, Washington College of Law (WCL) is cosponsoring a program on November 19, 2009, titled “Patentable Subject Matter After the Bilski Oral Argument”. Per the WCL website:
This likely will be an excellent panel discussion of the recent oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos. More information on the program, and details how to participate, may be found here.