Here is the cover image from USP 328,899 (1885).
Patent and Canine Legal Trivia and More
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Works of Art
Here is the cover image from USP 328,899 (1885).
Monday, June 5, 2017
Bad Apples and Patent Attorneys
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
One bad apple spoils the entire battle. Misdeeds of co-inventors, or even a patent attorney, can affect the property rights of an otherwise innocent individual. Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, 119 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed Cir. 1997)
One bad apple spoils the entire battle. Misdeeds of co-inventors, or even a patent attorney, can affect the property rights of an otherwise innocent individual. Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, 119 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed Cir. 1997)
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Examining Procedure
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
After evidence or argument is
submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on
the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due
consideration to persuasiveness of argument.
If
examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of
unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant
of the patent.
In Re Hans Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
The greatest advance ... in the last 40 years ---> Immaterial
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
it was immaterial whether Piasecki had made "the greatest advance ... in the last 40 years", if this "flowed logically and in an expected manner from the collective teachings of the prior art".
In Re Frank N. Piasecki and Donald N. Meyers, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
it was immaterial whether Piasecki had made "the greatest advance ... in the last 40 years", if this "flowed logically and in an expected manner from the collective teachings of the prior art".
In Re Frank N. Piasecki and Donald N. Meyers, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)