Bilski-Hitler Satirical Video.

JW Note:  Hat-tips to Zura’s 271 Blog and IPBIZ.  Hilarious spoof on Youtube related to the ongoing Bilski v. Kappos case being considered at the SCOTUS.  Apparently some patent attorney has had way too much time on his hands.  Enjoy! 

 

 

NYT Op-Ed – Inventing a Better Patent System.

An interesting op-ed article at the New York Times this week by Robert C. Pozen, the chairman of MFS Investment Management and a lecturer at Harvard Business School, on reforming the patent system in the United States.  Check it out here.

They Invented What? (No. 153)

U.S. Pat. No. 5,741,240: Float tube urinal.

 

What is claimed is:

1. A containment device for receiving and containing urine and being capable of direct attachment and support along a leg of an individual between the leg and external forces that would tend to collapse the containment device against the leg, the containment device being configured for use by a person using a float tube, said device comprising:

          a substantially rigid case having opposing inner and outer walls, said inner wall being configured for support against the leg of the individual, said outer wall being configured for counter support against the external forces, said rigid case defining a containment volume between the inner and outer walls for receiving and temporarily containing the urine;
          support means extending between the inner and outer walls for maintaining the containment volume and resisting collapse of the outer wall against the inner wall in response to the external forces;
          a fluid containment compartment positioned within the containment volume;
          inlet means for transporting urine from the individual to the containment compartment; and
vent means disposed in communication with the containment volume between the inner and outer walls for venting air from the containment volume to thereby facilitate receiving and temporarily containment of urine within the containment volume, the vent means comprising a flexible tube configured for extending from the case to a position out of a pair of waders to vent air from the containment area.

“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:

A Telecast by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Washington College of Law, American University and the Federal Circuit Bar Association

November 19, 2009, 4:30-6:30 pm
Washington College of Law, Room 603

In Bilski v. Kappos, the U.S. Supreme Court will address limitations on patentable subject matter in the context of a business method invention, analyzing a body of case law in such a way that some say could wrongly call into question the validity of many other patents and types of claims, while others argue it is not restrictive enough. The oral argument – and the subsequent decision – will be studied by a broad range of members of the patent community who are seeking to determine its effects on innovation, prosecution, licensing, and litigation. PIJIP and the FCBA will host a panel of experts to discuss the case shortly after the Court hears the oral argument.
 
The panelists for this program include: Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Counsel for Respondent, J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan Henderson, Counsel of Record for Petitioners, Nancy Linck, Rothwell, Figg, Counsel for Amicus Curiae BIO, and Randolph Moss, WilmerHale, Counsel for Amici Curiae Bank of America et al. A period for questions will follow. Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin, Gump, Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association and Professor Joshua Sarnoff, Washington College of Law, American University, Counsel for Amici Eleven Law Professors and the AARP will moderate.
 
In addition to on-site attendance, the FCBA will also broadcast the program live via the web on November 19, 2009 as a part of its regular Horizons series.    

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.

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 14^th 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.