They Invented What? (No. 70)
U.S. Design Pat. No. D215,690: Wall-mounted headboard for a bed.
I claim:
The ornamental design for a wall-mounted headboard for a bed, substantially as shown and described.
TPLA-Sponsored CLE Event on December 7th.
Per this notice today at the Toledo Patent Law Association (TPLA) website:
Toledo Patent Law Association (TPLA) is pleased to sponsor a 2.0 hour CLE credit event, certified by the Ohio Supreme Court, on December 7th, 2007. The CLE event is titled “Conflicts of Interest in Patent Prosecution and Litigation” and will be presented by Professor David Hricik from Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Georgia.
A registration form for the above CLE event may be found at the TPLA website here: Toledo Patent Law Association (TPLA).
The State of Legal Blogs.
Was recently forwarded this article at FindLaw, titled: The State of Legal Blogs: A Report From the Frontlines by William Gratsch.
An interesting read about the world of legal blogs, if you have a few minutes to spare.
A Call to Arms Over the New Claims and Continuations Rules?
Notable practitioner Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog and PLI Blog fame) issued a press release today in an attempt to marshal support for the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) challenge to the U.S. Patent Office claims and continuations rules. See a previous AT! post about the GSK complaint here. Mr. Quinn is firmly convinced that “the new patent rules will substantially change patent law and practice and negatively affect all companies and individuals who use the U.S. patent system.”
For those who want to analyze this matter further, there is also a great running post at the IPWatchdog that is chronicling the proceedings in the GSK case.
Your comments about this recent call to arms are welecomed!
CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corporation, et al.
The phrase “comprised of” does not of itself exclude the possible presence of additional elements or steps.
CIAS filed suit against Alliance, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,283,422 (the ‘422 Patent). The 422 Patent relates to counterfeit detection systems. Alliance produces detection systems for tickets used in casino slot machines. At District Court, Alliance was granted a summary judgment of non-infringement on the basis of the court’s construction of the term “comprised of”. On appeal, although affirming the judgement of the District Court, the CAFC found that the District Court erred in it’s construction of the term “comprised of”.
Claim 1 of the ‘422 patent recites:
1. A counterfeit detection system for identifying a counterfeit object from a set of similar authentic objects, each object in said set having unique authorized information associated therewith comprised of machine-readable code elements coded according to a detectable series, the system comprising:
means at a first facility for storing said authorized information;
means at a plurality of facilities other than said first facility for machine-reading code elements from a similar object and providing information related to the machine-read code elements;
means coupled to receive said information related to code elements machine-read from said object for at least temporarily storing that information; and
means at said first facility for detecting counterfeits coupled to said storing means and to said means for temporarily storing, said detecting means including a computer programmed to detect a counterfeit from information in said storing means at said first facility and from information received by said means for temporarily storing when information related to code elements machine read from a similar object is different from said authorized information; and
means for detecting when information relating to said code elements read from a similar object is the same as information previously read from a similar object, whereby a counterfeit may be detected.(Emphasis added).
The district court found that the meaning of “comprised of” had not been clearly resolved in patent-specific precedent. Therefore, the court held that the “ordinary and customary meaning” should be used, and ruled that the term “comprised of” does not have the same open-ended meaning as the term “comprising”. Thus, the court construed ”comprised of” as a closed-end term, similar to the term “consisting of”, that excludes the presence of all elements beyond those presented in the “comprised of” clause.
The CAFC disagreed with the District Court’s construction. Although “comprised of” is not used as regularly as “comprising,” and “comprised of” is sometimes used other than as a “transition phrase,” it nonetheless is recognized as a long-standing open-ended term. The usual and generally consistent meaning of “comprised of,” when it is used as a transition phrase, is that the ensuing elements or steps are not limiting. The conventional usage of “comprising” generally also applies to “comprised of.” Court precedent reflects the general understanding and usage of “comprised of” in patent convention has the same meaning as “comprising.” Correctly construed, “comprised of” does not of itself exclude the possible presence of additional elements or steps.
They Invented What? (No. 69)
U.S. Pat. No. 6,033,608: Method for making foam rubber tree bark-configured articles having manmade textiles backings.
What is claimed is:
1. A method of forming a tree bark-configured rubber article having a manmade textile backing comprising the sequential steps of
- (a) providing a rubber composition comprising
- at least one rubber selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), and mixtures thereof;
- at least one nitrogen-containing blowing agent;
- optionally, an ozone-resistance agent being ethylene-propylene-diene (EPDM); and
- optionally, at least one other additive selected from the group consisting of an antistatic agent, a perfume, a scent, a colorant, a dye, a pigment, and mixtures thereof;
- (b) placing said rubber composition over a silicon-based mold, wherein said mold is a relief of at least a portion of the bark of a tree;
- (c) placing at least one layer of a textile of sufficient size to cover at least a portion of said rubber composition, wherein
- said textile is selected from the group consisting of 100% polyester and 100% nylon;
- (d) vulcanizing the textile-covered rubber composition within the silicon-based mold under a pressure, at a temperature, and for a period of time sufficient to effectuate a closed cell structure within the resultant vulcanized foam rubber and to effectuate adhesion between the textile backing and the rubber composition;
- (e) removing the resultant vulcanized, textile-backed article from the silicon-based mold; and
- (f) optionally,
- (i) contacting at least a portion of the rubber side of said resultant article with at least one additive selected from the group consisting of an antistatic agent, a perfume, a scent, a dye, a pigment, and mixtures thereof;
- (ii) contacting at least a portion of the textile backing of said resultant article with at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a dye, a colorant, a pigment, an ultraviolet absorber, a softening agent, a soil release agent, and mixtures thereof; or
- (iii) both (i) and (ii).
MPEP, 8th Edition, Revision 6 now available.
The 8th Edition, Revision 6 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) is now available in PDF and html formats from the USPTO. The documents updated in Revision 6 were the following: Blue Pages; Title Page; Chapters 700, 1800, and 2100; Appendices II, L, R , T, and AI; and the Index.
The newly revised manual may be found here.
GlaxoSmithKline Files Complaint Against USPTO Over New Rules.
A suit was filed against the USPTO on October 9, 2007 in U.S. District Court (E.D. Va.), seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on the new claims and continuations rules scheduled to become effective on November 1st.
A copy of the complaint may be downloaded here.
Hat tip to Gene Quinn at the the PLI Blog. Commentary also at the Patent Prospector.
leave a comment