They Invented What? (No. 94)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,344,424: Anti-eating face mask.
What is claimed is:
1. A face mask for preventing the introduction of substances into the mouth of the wearer comprising in combination;
a cup shaped member conforming generally to the shape of the mouth and chin area of the wearer’s face below the nose, said cup shaped member formed of rigid material with openings to allow breathing therethrough,
means for mounting said cup shaped member over the mouth including plural straps extending from said cup over the head of the wearer,
one of said straps provided with a means for separation to allow for placement and removal of said face mask, and a lock at said separation means to prevent removal of said face mask, said mounting means further including a hoop member of rigid material adapted to extend over the user’s head and chin and a flexible strap having end portions connected to said hoop member for extending around the back of the user’s head and a strap member adapted to extend over the top of the user’s head, said strap member being connected at opposite ends to said hoop member and to said strap intermediate the ends of said strap, said separation means including a staple adjacent one end portion of said strap, and an aperture in said strap one end portion in longitudinally spaced relationship with said staple, said strap one end portion arranged to be looped around said hoop member for insertion of said staple in said aperture and said lock engageable with said staple extending through said aperture for locking said strap one end portion to said hoop member, wherein said hoop member is attached to said cup shaped member by plural rods extending therebetween, two of said rods attached to opposed sides of said cup shaped member, a third said rod attached to a lowermost portion of said hoop member.
They Invented What? (No. 93)
U.S. Pat. No. 6,799,399: Burial structure for the interment of human remains and significant memorabilia.
Having, thus, described the invention, what is claimed is:
1. A burial structure for the interment of human remains and any associated memorabilia therewith while forming a lasting memorial structure thereby to those therein interred, the burial structure comprising: (a) a plurality of individual burial units to hold the human remains, each individual burial unit comprising: (1) an outer container having a plurality of side walls and a bottom formed perpendicular to the plurality of side walls, the side walls and bottom cooperating to define at least one chamber formed therein, the plurality of side walls and bottom defining within each of the at least one chamber an upper opening and a lower opening; (2) an inner container fitted into each of the at least one chamber of the outer container, the inner container having a separating member upon which a lower chamber is formed thereto, the inner container further having an upper chamber formed to the separating member, the separating member interacting with the plurality of walls particularly forming each of the at least one chamber of the outer container so that the inner container seats within the outer container; (3) a cover fitted atop the side walls, the cover acting to seal the at least one chamber formed therein the outer container, wherein each individual burial unit may be mounted upon another individual burial unit; wherein the at least one chamber comprises a plurality of chambers.
Tafas v. Dudas; SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Dudas - Permanent Injunction Granted.
Defendants Jon W. Dudas and the United States Patent and Trademark Office are permanently enjoined from implementing the Final Claims and Continuations Rules.
The opinion of Judge James C. Cacheris in the Eastern District of Virginia may be found here. The order permanently enjoining the USPTO may be found here.
GSK and Tafas brought suit against the USPTO to permanently enjoin the USPTO from enacting the USPTO’s final claims and continuations rules. GSK and Tafas claimed that the rules were unlawful agency action under Section 706(2) of the APA and should be declared null and void. The USPTO argued that the Final Rules were entirely lawful and that it should be permitted to go forward and implement the rules. More details on the background and specific rules changes may be found at our previous posts here, here, here, and here. The Patent Docs have some exceptional background on the litigation, including copies of briefs filed, here.
In a well-written opinion, Judge James C. Cacheris rested his determination on the single dispositive issue of whether the USPTO is empowered to establish the final claims and continuations rules under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), which allows the USPTO to “establish regulations, not inconsistent with law,” to “govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.”
Judge Cacheris first noted that, even though the APA does not define a “substantive rule,” any rule that “affect[s] individual rights and obligations” has been deemed substantive by the courts. With this understanding, Judge Cacheris found:
Though [the new contination rule) does not completely prohibit applicants from filing more than two continuation or continuation-in-part applications, because the USPTO intends to deny additional applications in almost all circumstances, . . . the “could not have been submitted” standard of the petition and showing requirement effectively imposes a hard limit on additional applications. (Emphasis ours).
and
[T]he ESD requirement changes existing law and alters the rights of applicants under the current statutory scheme by shifting the examination burden away from the USPTO and onto applicants. . . . [T]he Federal Circuit has stated that applicants have “no duty to conduct a prior art search” and “no duty to disclose art of which an applicant could have been aware. . .” . In addition, Sections 102 and 103 provide that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless” the claimed invention lacks novelty or is obvious in view of the prior art, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and Section 131 states that the USPTO “shall cause an examination to be made of the application”. . . . The Federal Circuit has read these provisions as placing the burden of examination and the burden of proof to make a prima facie case of unpatentability on the USPTO.
thus
The 2+1 Rule and the 5/25 Rule, which limit continuing applications, RCEs, and claims, and the ESD requirement, which shifts the examination burden onto applicants, constitute a drastic departure from the terms of the Patent Act as they are presently understood. By so departing, the Final Rules effect changes in GSK’s and Tafas’s existing rights and obligations.
Accordingly, the Judge Cacheris held:
Because the USPTO’s rulemaking authority under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) does not extend to substantive rules, and because the Final Rules are substantive in nature, the Court finds that the Final Rules are void as “otherwise not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction [and] authority.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
Hat tip to the Patent Prospector.
USPTO-IP Australia Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program.
The USPTO and the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) have agreed to a trial program allowing applicants to fast-track patent applications. Under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs, an applicant receiving a ruling from either Patent Office that at least one claim in an application is patentable may request that the other Patent Office fast track the examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications.
Similar PPH programs are presently in place with the Japananese Patent Office (JPO), UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), Canadian Patent Office (CIPO), and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).
Per the press release from the Australian Patent Office:
IP Australia and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that they will launch a new trial cooperation initiative called the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) in April. For patent applicants with interests and applications in the US and Australia this program will result in faster patent examination times.
Under the PPH, an applicant receiving a report from either the USPTO or IP Australia with at least one patentable claim in an application may request that the other office accelerate the examination of the corresponding application. The applicant benefits from the patent offices using the work previously conducted by the other office, by obtaining corresponding patents faster and more efficiently.
“IP Australia is pleased to be taking part in the pilot program of the Patent Prosecution Highway with the USPTO,” said IP Australia’s Director General Philip Noonan. “We strongly support the aim of this initiative with its benefits of increasing quality and efficiency of examination while reducing pendency time. This service is a valuable addition to the patent examination services offered by IP Australia and provides Australian applicants with a process for fast-tracking the examination of their applications in a key market.”
“We welcome this opportunity to work cooperatively with IP Australia. This pilot represents a significant step in reaching worksharing on a global scale and extends the growing Patent Prosecution Highway network which will streamline the global patent system,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Jon Dudas, “By leveraging each other office’s work , this pilot allows each patent office to attain efficiency gains and higher patent quality.”
Full requirements for participation in the trial program can be found at www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pph/pph_ipau.html and www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/international/pph_uspto.shtml
The trial program will allow the USPTO and IP Australia to determine the interest of patent applicants in such program. It will also provide feedback on whether the aims of the program for an increase in quality and efficiency are met. The trial period is set for one year, but may be extended for up to one year.
Commissioner Jon Dudas Says USPTO Is All About Staying “Technology Neutral”.
Excerpts below from a recent interview with Commissioner Jon Dudas, via C|NET News.com:
Patent Commissioner Jon Dudas says his office is all about staying “technology neutral,” so long as the invention meets certain standards.
“The system we’ve had has worked to promote technology for 200 years, and it can do that in the software industry, so long as you follow the principles that (a technology) is useful, new, and nonobvious.”
On particular topics, Commissioner Dudas was quoted as saying:
On software patents: “Software, biotechnology, business methods–In the United States, the Supreme Court has consistently held that those are areas where there should be patents, and those industries have flourished.
“Specifically with open source, I think the two should coexist very well. If someone gets a patent, then that intellectual property has to be respected, but so long as that patent isn’t used, open source can be as open as it needs to be. You can license some (patents) and not license others. There are some who feel by definition you should only have open source or only have a patented model. The administration’s position has always been that…both open source and patents help innovation thrive.”
On business method patents: “We essentially said, we shouldn’t base whether or not something is patentable on what type of technology it is or even what kind of method it is…so long as it’s new, useful, and nonobvious.
“Probably in the last three years, of all the (business method patent) applications that have come in the door, the office has said 85 percent of these are not allowable. The patent system, I believe, is working very well… We’re starting to get a higher percentage of business method patents being approved, probably in the 20 percent range.”
On “so-called” patent trolls and whether they’re overhyped: “It depends on how someone defines a patent troll. ‘Patent troll’ is meant to be a pejorative term. Some have defined it as someone who doesn’t develop a project commercially. Certainly, someone who comes up with a great idea and licenses it, that’s a very efficient way to do it.
“I think the concern there is more a concern with the judicial system as a whole than it is with the patent system.”
On gripes by large technology companies that patent infringement fines are too high: “The administration has said we do think judges could give better guidance to juries. We definitely feel that in the case of damages, it would be good if judges could give very specific guidance to juries. With the provisions in the existing bills right now, the administration has said, ‘We oppose the entire bill based on that because they favor one type of damage model over another.’
“There are a variety of different factors you can apply to determine what the right compensation is, and you, as best as possible, want to mimic the market. But the bills direct you to a certain couple of factors that may or may not mimic the market. We’re saying the judge should tell the jury; don’t just say, ‘Here’s 15 factors; figure it out for yourself.’ The judge should tell jury, ‘Here are a number of factors. These 3 seem critical; look at factors 2, 5, and 6.”
“When they talk about damages awards and things like that, people say there’s a lot of bad patents. When you get to the point of a damages award, there’s a judge and jury that already determined this is a valid patent… By the time you look at damages awards, you’re talking about good patents and you’re talking about actual infringement of intellectual property.”
On weeding out “bad” patents from the get-go: “Making sure applicants can give good information up front…will lead to a much better patent system–more than anything else. (The Patent Office is proposing that applicants) do a basic search (for “prior art,” which is previously published technology that relates to an invention) and short report about why their invention should be patented.
“In 27 percent of cases, nothing is submitted in terms of prior art. In another 17 or 18 percent of cases, people just give us a long list of references. There really is a responsibility for people to come in and say, ‘Here’s why I think I deserve a patent; here’s some of the areas to look at.’ The decision will always rest with the patent examiner. The patent examiner will always do the full search and review and analysis.”
On reducing in-court patent litigation: “The administration proposed post-grant review (a process within the Patent Office where people would be able to challenge patents just after they’re issued). It has to be a true alternative to litigation. We don’t think the idea is to have another way to question a patent, and then you can go to court and you can go to post-grant. The standard we’ve held is that there should be a threshold in order to get a post-grant review, an actual threat of litigation.
“The second thing–this is the critical point–if you choose to go to post-grant review, any issue you raise or could’ve raised, you have to raise there, or you can’t raise it again. You don’t want an innovator to have hurdle after hurdle after hurdle after they’ve gotten a patent.”
On whether Congress and the Bush administration can reach an accord on new patent system rules: “We feel like senators and members are cognizant and care about concerns of the administration. Ideally we’ll have a bill with a letter from the administration saying we support this bill as it is. That’s our goal.”
On handling a flood of patent applications: “We’ve hired more examiners in terms of raw numbers and percentages in the history of the office. We’ve said very clearly, hiring more examiners in and of itself won’t be the solution. Even hiring 1,200 examiners, even increasing a lot of different flexibility initiatives that increase productivity…we still get more applications in the door than we’re able to examine.
“What we really need to do is get higher quality applications. The allowance rate, those applications that are approved, used to hover between 62 and 72 percent, back 35 to 40 years ago. In the last 6 years, it went up to 72 percent in 2000, then dropped steadily down to a 43 percent allowance rate. So what we see is 57 percent of what comes in the door doesn’t lead to a patent. “
On the long line to get a patent–and how some may game the system: “Most of the time when people say it takes me 33 months to get a patent, people think, “What’s taking so long?” The examiner only takes a few weeks. That time is all waiting in line. That line is getting longer and longer and longer–filled with applications that never get approved. What’s, in lots of ways, more disturbing is in over half the cases where we say this isn’t patentable, people just file again and get back in line.
“We put out a rule (that was supposed to take effect last November) saying that you can only do that three times. But we were sued. (A judge issued a temporary injunction against the rule.) Right now, the way the law has been interpreted is people have unlimited opportunities to refile their application. You have more opportunities to have us look at your patent application than you do to appeal your death sentence.
“We want to make certain that people can’t apply with a very broad patent application, which they know will get rejected. And then they get back in line, and meanwhile, they’re looking out and seeing what’s happening in the market. Sometimes they see that if they focused that broad claim, it could cover an existing technology… Then, (going by) the date of first filing, they can then say, ‘I own that technology’… That’s a very real concern. That gets more in line with concerns of troll behavior–someone who is literally watching the technology…so they can rise up out of the bridge and sue people.”
JW Note: Insightful interview. PLI Blog - Quinn thinks the views espoused by Dudas reasonable. Thoughts from our readers?
They Invented What? (No. 92)
U.S. Pat. No. 5,255,452: Method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion.
I claim:
1. A system for engaging shoes with a hitch mans to permit a person standing on a stage surface to lean forwardly beyond his or her center of gravity, comprising:
at least one shoe having a heel with a first engagement means, said first engagement means comprising a recess formed in a heel of said shoe covered with a heel slot plane located at a bottom region of said heel, said heel slot plate having a slot formed therein with a relatively wide opening at a leading edge of said heel and a narrower terminal end rearward of said leading edge, said recess being larger in size above said terminal end of said slot than is said terminal end of said slot; and
a second engagement means, detachably engageable with said first engagement means, comprising a hitch member having an enlarged head portion connected by a narrower shank portion to a means for raising and lowering said head of said hitch member above and substantially level with or below said stage surface, said head portion being larger in size than said terminal end of said slot and said shank portion being narrower than said terminal end of said slot, wherein said hitch member can be moved through apertures in said stage surface between a projecting position raised above said stage surface and a retracted position at or below the stage surface, and when said head portion of said hitch member is raised above said stage surface, said first engagement means can be detachably engaged with said projecting hitch member, thereby allowing a person wearing the shoes to lean forwardly with his or her normal center of gravity beyond a front region of said shoes, and maintain said forward lean.
The Official Cisco Blog on Blogging.
In light of the recent self-unmasking of the Patent Troll Tracker as Cisco employee Rick Frenkel (and particularly in view of the recent litigation surrounding his anonymous blogging), Cisco has implemented a new corporate blogging policy, which notably states:
If you comment on any aspect of the company’s business or any policy issue in which the company is involved and in which you have responsibility, you must clearly identify yourself as a Cisco employee in your postings or blog site(s) and include a disclaimer that the views are your own and not those of Cisco. In addition, Cisco employees should not circulate postings they know are written by other Cisco employees without informing the recipient that the author of the posting is a Cisco employee.
See the Cisco post unveiling the new policy here. Probably not a bad policy to emulate, if your company or its employees operates or posts to blogs or like websites.
